Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 15:18:48 GMT -5
Yes, but isn't that what all types of music do? They change and evolve? Is their an uproar that Rock music isn't traditional? R&B? I am not a huge fan of those genres so I don't know if that's the case. But I don't understand why so many country music fans expect things to stay the same. Isn't evolution an improvement, though? I don't think the lyrics of most of today's country is an improvement over the music of the past. I absolutely hate when people apply the word "evolution" to the changing of corporate radio trends when discussing how genres have changed. "Change" is a suitable word, sure, but at what point should they decide to call the genre something completely different? I think we're past that point, myself. The CEO of Cumulus already stated that today's country music, at least the stuff on mainstream radio, is just another top 40 format but "with different records" (and that's why they wanted to do Nash Icons). So my question is, why even bother calling it country music anymore? It's clearly changed so much that it really isn't what country has always been defined as anymore. I'm fine with genres changing and shifting to incorporate new styles and sounds but I think it's gone way too far now, and the fact that the genre--at least in terms of radio--appears to be headed towards a fracture speaks volumes. Corporate radio is obsessed with the business aspect of it (and, since they are a business, I can't blame them), and they've sold out to the younger demographic because nowadays with the digital age, it's the younger group that makes up the bulk of the consumers of digital singles. The problem is that the vast majority of youngsters aren't familiar with country music pre-2008 (ish).
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,694
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 14, 2014 15:18:50 GMT -5
I haven't even heard this one yet. If I have I wasn't paying attention (probably talking, haha. It's what I do best!) I don't think I want to hear it either. You're lucky. Do yourself a favor and please do NOT listen to it!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 15:21:52 GMT -5
Yes, H., please don't just bop in here with one-liners. You like the song...so? I dislike the song...so? See where I'm going with this? Posts like that don't lead to any discussion. Please check out our country forum posting guidelines. Thanks.
|
|
Kat5Kind
Gold Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 768
|
Post by Kat5Kind on Jun 14, 2014 15:28:32 GMT -5
I haven't even heard this one yet. If I have I wasn't paying attention (probably talking, haha. It's what I do best!) I don't think I want to hear it either. You're lucky. Do yourself a favor and please do NOT listen to it! Okay, I'll try not to! I liked his last single, but he needs to figure out what his sound is and stick with it.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,423
|
Post by matty005 on Jun 14, 2014 15:34:17 GMT -5
Yes, but isn't that what all types of music do? They change and evolve? Is their an uproar that Rock music isn't traditional? R&B? I am not a huge fan of those genres so I don't know if that's the case. But I don't understand why so many country music fans expect things to stay the same. Isn't evolution an improvement, though? I don't think the lyrics of most of today's country is an improvement over the music of the past. I absolutely hate when people apply the word "evolution" to the changing of corporate radio trends when discussing how genres have changed. "Change" is a suitable word, sure, but at what point should they decide to call the genre something completely different? I think we're past that point, myself. The CEO of Cumulus already stated that today's country music, at least the stuff on mainstream radio, is just another top 40 format but "with different records" (and that's why they wanted to do Nash Icons). So my question is, why even bother calling it country music anymore? It's clearly changed so much that it really isn't what country has always been defined as anymore. I'm fine with genres changing and shifting to incorporate new styles and sounds but I think it's gone way too far now, and the fact that the genre--at least in terms of radio--appears to be headed towards a fracture speaks volumes. Corporate radio is obsessed with the business aspect of it (and, since they are a business, I can't blame them), and they've sold out to the younger demographic because nowadays with the digital age, it's the younger group that makes up the bulk of the consumers of digital singles. The problem is that the vast majority of youngsters aren't familiar with country music pre-2008 (ish). Jamie, per usual, you bring up a fantastic point. But maybe the people who like this type of music DO consider it better. Just like fans of Shania and Garth liked that better than what was played before they were dominating the airwaves.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 15:40:26 GMT -5
Jamie, per usual, you bring up a fantastic point. But maybe the people who like this type of music DO consider it better. Just like fans of Shania and Garth liked that better than what was played before they were dominating the airwaves. And that's fine, but I wish they could have their own genre then. I don't begrudge the popular artists of today their success, but I hate that it's come at the expense of the music that I love. I would say I probably like a lot more of today's country music than many people here do, but at the same time, a lot of it doesn't sound particularly country to me, and a lot of my favorites nowadays fizzle out very low on the charts. I just hate that the actual country stuff has completely been run off of country radio...that doesn't make sense to me. Country radio should be its home format, but instead they are more focused on top 40 type of records and pleasing youngsters, many of whom, in my opinion, probably don't know much about country music at all.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,694
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 14, 2014 15:42:43 GMT -5
Jamie, per usual, you bring up a fantastic point. But maybe the people who like this type of music DO consider it better. Just like fans of Shania and Garth liked that better than what was played before they were dominating the airwaves. And that's fine, but I wish they could have their own genre then. I don't begrudge the popular artists of today their success, but I hate that it's come at the expense of the music that I love. I would say I probably like a lot more of today's country music than many people here do, but at the same time, a lot of it doesn't sound particularly country to me, and a lot of my favorites nowadays fizzle out very low on the charts. I just hate that the actual country stuff has completely been run off of country radio...that doesn't make sense to me. Country radio should be its home format, but instead they are more focused on top 40 type of records and pleasing youngsters, many of whom, in my opinion, probably don't know much about country music at all. Don't forget about the part time deejays that don't know anything about country music, either. That does not help, either.
|
|
Kat5Kind
Gold Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 768
|
Post by Kat5Kind on Jun 14, 2014 15:43:16 GMT -5
Isn't evolution an improvement, though? I don't think the lyrics of most of today's country is an improvement over the music of the past. I absolutely hate when people apply the word "evolution" to the changing of corporate radio trends when discussing how genres have changed. "Change" is a suitable word, sure, but at what point should they decide to call the genre something completely different? I think we're past that point, myself. The CEO of Cumulus already stated that today's country music, at least the stuff on mainstream radio, is just another top 40 format but "with different records" (and that's why they wanted to do Nash Icons). So my question is, why even bother calling it country music anymore? It's clearly changed so much that it really isn't what country has always been defined as anymore. I'm fine with genres changing and shifting to incorporate new styles and sounds but I think it's gone way too far now, and the fact that the genre--at least in terms of radio--appears to be headed towards a fracture speaks volumes. Corporate radio is obsessed with the business aspect of it (and, since they are a business, I can't blame them), and they've sold out to the younger demographic because nowadays with the digital age, it's the younger group that makes up the bulk of the consumers of digital singles. The problem is that the vast majority of youngsters aren't familiar with country music pre-2008 (ish). Jamie, per usual, you bring up a fantastic point. But maybe the people who like this type of music DO consider it better. Just like fans of Shania and Garth liked that better than what was played before they were dominating the airwaves. I'm familiar with both. I'm a huge fan of most new country, and I consider it to be more fun to listen to. I don't mind older country, but I can't relate to it as much as I can modern country. When I listen to older country I'm more likely to go for 80s and onward. I think fun is best since it relieves stress in life (I'm 16 and I like to have fun. Not in the way you're probably thinking).
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,694
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 14, 2014 15:44:09 GMT -5
(I'm 16 and I like to have fun. Not in the way you're probably thinking).
Nobody's judging!
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,423
|
Post by matty005 on Jun 14, 2014 15:45:40 GMT -5
Jamie, per usual, you bring up a fantastic point. But maybe the people who like this type of music DO consider it better. Just like fans of Shania and Garth liked that better than what was played before they were dominating the airwaves. And that's fine, but I wish they could have their own genre then. I don't begrudge the popular artists of today their success, but I hate that it's come at the expense of the music that I love. I would say I probably like a lot more of today's country music than many people here do, but at the same time, a lot of it doesn't sound particularly country to me, and a lot of my favorites nowadays fizzle out very low on the charts. I just hate that the actual country stuff has completely been run off of country radio...that doesn't make sense to me. Country radio should be its home format, but instead they are more focused on top 40 type of records and pleasing youngsters, many of whom, in my opinion, probably don't know much about country music at all. But again, couldn't this have been said in the late 90s when Shania and Faith were dominating the country scene? They all had multiple pop hits and many acts tried to duplicate their style of music. Couldn't people who were more fans of George, AJ and Clint Black said the same thing you are now? "I wish they could have their own genre then."
|
|
Kat5Kind
Gold Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 768
|
Post by Kat5Kind on Jun 14, 2014 15:50:18 GMT -5
(I'm 16 and I like to have fun. Not in the way you're probably thinking). Nobody's judging! I meant with my music! ;) I'm glad no one really judges here except on musical tastes.
|
|
onebuffalo
Diamond Member
#LiteralLegender
I am One Buffalo.
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 26,694
|
Post by onebuffalo on Jun 14, 2014 15:51:48 GMT -5
(I'm 16 and I like to have fun. Not in the way you're probably thinking). Nobody's judging! I meant with my music! ;) I'm glad no one really judges here except on musical tastes. That's the way it should be. Loved the post and I saw an opening to comment!
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,100
|
Post by McCreerian on Jun 14, 2014 15:57:58 GMT -5
It's easy for younger people to relate to songs about having sex if a truck, checking out a girl's shaking butt, getting drunk on a tailgate, partying all night, etc. But the soccer moms/dads, middle aged and older people miss the songs about true love, love loss, faith, and stories in general of small town life. That is real Country music and why Country music was called that in the first place. If they are going to sing about the former I mentioned it should just be called Big City music. Sure young people in small town life party and sing about it, listen to "Chattahoochee" but even that has a good story line. Most of today's songs are just words thrown together saying the same thing with a similar beat, and similar voices singing them. No era in Country music has ever been this less diverse in the subject matter (and void of solo women) of 95% of the songs in the top 20 at any given time than it is now. People complained and still complain about Taylor Swift and her music being too Pop for Country, and some of it isn't even played on Country, yet her songs that are Very Pop and played on Country like "You Belong with Me" "Back to December" and "Our Song" at least have a decent storyline. I'll take Taylor Swift over "Donkey" and the like any day!
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 16:03:32 GMT -5
And that's fine, but I wish they could have their own genre then. I don't begrudge the popular artists of today their success, but I hate that it's come at the expense of the music that I love. I would say I probably like a lot more of today's country music than many people here do, but at the same time, a lot of it doesn't sound particularly country to me, and a lot of my favorites nowadays fizzle out very low on the charts. I just hate that the actual country stuff has completely been run off of country radio...that doesn't make sense to me. Country radio should be its home format, but instead they are more focused on top 40 type of records and pleasing youngsters, many of whom, in my opinion, probably don't know much about country music at all. But again, couldn't this have been said in the late 90s when Shania and Faith were dominating the country scene? They all had multiple pop hits and many acts tried to duplicate their style of music. Couldn't people who were more fans of George, AJ and Clint Black said the same thing you are now? "I wish they could have their own genre then." Maybe they could have said that, but there's a huge difference here. Back when Shania and Faith were hugely popular there was still plenty of room for traditional country on the radio back then, as well as more female artists. George, Alan, Clay Walker, Lee Ann Womack, etc (I could go on and on) were all getting plenty of regular airplay right through the peak years for Shania and Faith. I don't think the Garth/Faith argument holds any water. People will always criticize certain periods of any genre, that's obvious...but the genre wasn't on the verge of fracturing in the 90's, and to my knowledge there weren't too many country artists coming out and saying that country music is dead. In the last year alone, how many of today's country artists have spoken up? Alan Jackson, Gary Allan, Colin Raye, Ronnie Dunn, Kacey Musgraves, Clay Walker, Zac Brown...I'm sure I'm missing a bunch. Alan has said on multiple occasions that you can't get actual traditional country on the radio anymore. Is he wrong? I wish he was, but I don't think he is. Clay Walker has said that traditional country music is dead. Look at the reaction that the CMT Awards got online. I've also seen radio stations getting bashed for playing the FGL/Jason Derulo remix. Country radio used to be about the style of the music (country) and telling stories, but now it's about uptempo fun stuff that younger listeners will enjoy. There aren't too many 'deep' songs about real life issues that real people face everyday everyday (rejection, pain and loss, ambivalence, as well as joy and true love)...instead most of the popular songs today are all about hoppin in the truck with some hot girl ridin' shotgun and some cold beer in the console, and then drivin' down to the river bank to make love in the truck bed under the moonlight. What happens when the FGL boys grow up, or when most of their younger fans are all in their 30's and 40's? Are they still going to want to listen to party music and the nothing-but-uptempo-fun-country-radio, or will they have to turn towards some radio format that's more oriented towards adults?
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,423
|
Post by matty005 on Jun 14, 2014 16:06:29 GMT -5
But again, couldn't this have been said in the late 90s when Shania and Faith were dominating the country scene? They all had multiple pop hits and many acts tried to duplicate their style of music. Couldn't people who were more fans of George, AJ and Clint Black said the same thing you are now? "I wish they could have their own genre then." Maybe they could have said that, but there's a huge difference here. Back when Shania and Faith were hugely popular there was still plenty of room for traditional country on the radio back then, as well as more female artists. George, Alan, Clay Walker, Lee Ann Womack, etc (I could go on and on) were all getting plenty of regular airplay right through the peak years for Shania and Faith. I don't think the Garth/Faith argument holds any water. People will always criticize certain periods of any genre, that's obvious...but the genre wasn't on the verge of fracturing in the 90's, and to my knowledge there weren't too many country artists coming out and saying that country music is dead. In the last year alone, how many of today's country artists have spoken up? Alan Jackson, Gary Allan, Colin Raye, Ronnie Dunn, Kacey Musgraves, Clay Walker, Zac Brown...I'm sure I'm missing a bunch. Alan has said on multiple occasions that you can't get actual traditional country on the radio anymore. Is he wrong? I wish he was, but I don't think he is. Clay Walker has said that traditional country music is dead. Look at the reaction that the CMT Awards got online. I've also seen radio stations getting bashed for playing the FGL/Jason Derulo remix. Country radio used to be about the style of the music (country), but now it's about uptempo fun stuff that younger listeners will enjoy. There aren't too many 'deep' songs about real life issues that real people face everyday...it's all about hoppin in the truck with some hot girl ridin' shotgun and some cold beer in the console, and then drivin' down to the river bank to make love in the truck bed under the moonlight. What happens when the FGL boys grow up, or when most of their younger fans are all in their 30's and 40's? Are they still going to want to listen to party music and the nothing-but-uptempo-fun-country-radio, or will they have to turn towards some radio format that's more oriented towards adults? Again, I agree with you so much. But in regards to making statements, like Joey said, George and AJ made a song about murder on music row. That's a much louder statement than artists just making a tweet about it or commenting to a magazine about it.
|
|
|
Post by Spacey_Kacey on Jun 14, 2014 16:08:35 GMT -5
Maybe they could have said that, but there's a huge difference here. Back when Shania and Faith were hugely popular there was still plenty of room for traditional country on the radio back then, as well as more female artists. George, Alan, Clay Walker, Lee Ann Womack, etc (I could go on and on) were all getting plenty of regular airplay right through the peak years for Shania and Faith. I don't think the Garth/Faith argument holds any water. People will always criticize certain periods of any genre, that's obvious...but the genre wasn't on the verge of fracturing in the 90's, and to my knowledge there weren't too many country artists coming out and saying that country music is dead. In the last year alone, how many of today's country artists have spoken up? Alan Jackson, Gary Allan, Colin Raye, Ronnie Dunn, Kacey Musgraves, Clay Walker, Zac Brown...I'm sure I'm missing a bunch. Alan has said on multiple occasions that you can't get actual traditional country on the radio anymore. Is he wrong? I wish he was, but I don't think he is. Clay Walker has said that traditional country music is dead. Look at the reaction that the CMT Awards got online. I've also seen radio stations getting bashed for playing the FGL/Jason Derulo remix. Country radio used to be about the style of the music (country), but now it's about uptempo fun stuff that younger listeners will enjoy. There aren't too many 'deep' songs about real life issues that real people face everyday...it's all about hoppin in the truck with some hot girl ridin' shotgun and some cold beer in the console, and then drivin' down to the river bank to make love in the truck bed under the moonlight. What happens when the FGL boys grow up, or when most of their younger fans are all in their 30's and 40's? Are they still going to want to listen to party music and the nothing-but-uptempo-fun-country-radio, or will they have to turn towards some radio format that's more oriented towards adults? Again, I agree with you so much. But in regards to making statements, like Joey said, George and AJ made a song about murder on music row. That's a much louder statement than artists just making a tweet about it or commenting to a magazine about it. Who would hear it if a song was written? It has been tried but nothing has gone absolutely viral. Radio is still necessary but they won't play it.
|
|
McCreerian
9x Platinum Member
Joined: June 2010
Posts: 9,100
|
Post by McCreerian on Jun 14, 2014 16:11:28 GMT -5
Country has always had party songs and some damn good ones like "All My Rowdy Friends" and "Friends in Low Places." But in no era has the majority of every song and artist on the radio been one party song after another! That is what it all comes down to now. No diversity. Give me a party all night/tailgate song, a divorce song, a love song, a death song, a small town song, a working man/blue collar song, a faith song, a drinking/bar stool song then rinse and repeat all over again. How hard is that?
|
|
joey2002
6x Platinum Member
Joined: January 2009
Posts: 6,372
|
Post by joey2002 on Jun 14, 2014 16:12:37 GMT -5
Jamie, per usual, you bring up a fantastic point. But maybe the people who like this type of music DO consider it better. Just like fans of Shania and Garth liked that better than what was played before they were dominating the airwaves. And that's fine, but I wish they could have their own genre then. I don't begrudge the popular artists of today their success, but I hate that it's come at the expense of the music that I love. I would say I probably like a lot more of today's country music than many people here do, but at the same time, a lot of it doesn't sound particularly country to me, and a lot of my favorites nowadays fizzle out very low on the charts. I just hate that the actual country stuff has completely been run off of country radio...that doesn't make sense to me. Country radio should be its home format, but instead they are more focused on top 40 type of records and pleasing youngsters, many of whom, in my opinion, probably don't know much about country music at all. I think eventually there will be multiple genres of country music, just like all the genres of rock music (classic rock, hard rock, alternative rock, etc.)
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2014 16:26:13 GMT -5
And that's fine, but I wish they could have their own genre then. I don't begrudge the popular artists of today their success, but I hate that it's come at the expense of the music that I love. I would say I probably like a lot more of today's country music than many people here do, but at the same time, a lot of it doesn't sound particularly country to me, and a lot of my favorites nowadays fizzle out very low on the charts. I just hate that the actual country stuff has completely been run off of country radio...that doesn't make sense to me. Country radio should be its home format, but instead they are more focused on top 40 type of records and pleasing youngsters, many of whom, in my opinion, probably don't know much about country music at all. I think eventually there will be multiple genres of country music, just like all the genres of rock music (classic rock, hard rock, alternative rock, etc.) Agreed Joey. Although I think we'll see some resistance at first. It seems that country has always prided itself on being one big genre. I'm all for the idea, since more alternative and traditional styles might once again have a radio format. But the one problem then is that the audience will all be split up. The current #1 song on the Mediabase Active Rock chart has just over 5 million impressions. On the Alternative chart, the top song has 12 million. On the regular Rock chart (I'm looking at Kwob's site, by the way), the top song only has 1.019 million in audience and only 300 total spins. And the #1 song on Triple A doesn't even have 2 million impressions. I suppose more stations could flip to country, but what would most likely happen is that many existing country stations would either rebrand as "hot country" or "adult country" or "real country" (traditional), etc. If country radio does indeed fracture--and I think it will soon--it will mean more exposure for some types of country that can't make it in today's radio climate, but it will also mean a fractured audience.
|
|
carriekins
5x Platinum Member
With my mouth wide open in a whiskey rain, I could stand here 24 hours a day...
Joined: November 2011
Posts: 5,330
|
Post by carriekins on Jun 14, 2014 16:30:42 GMT -5
My problem is not with the genre evolving. My problem is that there is so little variety on country radio - almost everything sounds the same. So, basically, everything jhomes87 said, because sometimes I think we share a brain, even if she is 12 years younger than me. ;)
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,920
|
Post by sabre14 on Jun 14, 2014 16:45:48 GMT -5
^ Completely agree. Every type of music is subjective like matty005 said, and I think were are heading for a fracture of the country genre, which to be honest makes me sad that it might come to that. I'm to the point now were I'm bored by all these songs now. What bothers me more than the fact that I don't care for the new influx of music, is that there's no more variety anymore. I'm nervous about how much the total audience of country will get impacted by a fracture of the genre that jhomes87 eluded to. While it will mean a place for more traditional country (or just a good variety to be honest), it might mean that the country genre will fall by the waist side to what it used to be. How will that impact corporate country radio and the dollars they would like to garner which I'm sure they would like to keep that what they are making now. It's definitely uncharted waters that we''ll be diving into if that day comes which it will if country radio keeps the path it's heading down.
|
|
sabre14
Diamond Member
Vince Gill & the Muppets make everything better
Joined: October 2013
Posts: 26,920
|
Post by sabre14 on Jun 14, 2014 17:05:12 GMT -5
Jerrod Niemann is a good artist...stop acting like he's the second coming of Bin Laden...jeez. It's one bad song. If you listened to some of the songs he's recorded (Bakersfield, Space, Refill, Old School New Again to name a few) then I'm sure you'd respect the guy a little more. I hate this song, but I'm not gonna crucify the guy for it. He didn't wanna follow up a hit like James Otto did (For You flopped) Or like David Nail has (Turning Home, Sound of a Million Dreams, probably Kiss You Tonight) or like Jerrod did himself two years ago (Only God Could Love You More) He wants his name and his songs to be heard. I have no problem at all with that. I agree 100%. We have a like button. ;) I'd rather you expand on what Phil said rather than just saying you agree.
|
|
|
Post by 43dudleyvillas on Jun 14, 2014 20:25:43 GMT -5
First week sales of Alan Jackson's The Bluegrass Album, released 24 September 2013: 22,000 (via Billboard) First week sales of Jerrod Niemann's High Noon, released 25 March 2014: 14,000 (via Roughstock) Total sales of Alan Jackson's The Bluegrass Album two months after release (the week ending 24 November 2013): 82,000 (via Billboard) Total sales of Jerrod Niemann's High Noon two months after release (the week ending 25 May 2014): 45,000 (via Roughstock) [I'm aware of the track sales differential, which should be chalked up to the airplay differential between the two. But matty005 mentioned CD sales, so I thought the most recent numbers were instructive. Moreover, considering the amount of money that goes into radio single promotion, I have to wonder if the return on the investment in Jerrod Niemann's airplay is anywhere near the return on the investment in Alan Jackson's current album promotion.] Good points, but I guess my point is that the style of music is hard to sell. AJ is a legend so he still sells. Same with George. But this type of music that sells (FGL, Luke, Blake) are selling. Of course you have not so big acts who don't sell as much, (Jerrod, Tyler Farr, Cole Swindell) but you also had that in the 90s. You had Garth and AJ, and George and Shania and Faith selling HUGE. But you also had acts who were singing that similar styles to those guys but not selling as much (Tracy Byrd, John Michael Montgomery, Collin Raye). I don't think the hard data shows that it is much harder to sell traditional country music (or contemporary country music with substantial ties to traditional country music) than it is formulaic beer/party/truck songs, especially once one controls for radio support. Want to put aside the Alan Jackson example because he's a legend who can sell without radio support? Fine. Explain the disparity between Kacey Musgraves' album/download sales and her airplay. Even now, Kacey Musgraves is outselling the likes of Justin Moore (who has two previous gold albums under his belt) and Thomas Rhett on a weekly basis (among others), having also easily outpaced them overall, and she's doing it with an album over six months older than theirs. The one single of Kacey's that did make the top-10 is nearing platinum sales (and may have met RIAA requirements for platinum certification once streams are factored in), and another single of hers ("Follow Your Arrow") will eventually reach gold sales despite not making the top-40 at country radio. That she isn't receiving more country airplay is clearly a sign that country radio's current target audience differs from her growing fanbase of country, Americana, and pop fans. As much as I am bored by and/or dislike their music, I'm not arguing for Luke, Blake, and Florida-Georgia Line to be banished from the airwaves -- their market impact is such that I understand why radio would still be on board with their mediocrity. What I am saying is that the argument that radio is simply following the market by excluding nearly everything that isn't by a male and about backwoods beer drinking/truck driving/partying with the hotties falters once the sales of those following in their formulaic footsteps are considered. The followers simply aren't making a strong market impact in the album sales department (Jerrod Niemann is but one example. Thomas Rhett, Brett Eldredge, Tyler Farr, Jake Owen, & Chris Young are others). Sure, the followers have gold singles to their credit, but so too do the likes of Jana Kramer (on her only hit so far) and the aforementioned Kacey. In other words, the developing female artists who have gotten top-10 level radio support are also selling, but they are being shut out after one hit. If the argument for supporting one formulaic hick hoppy beer/party/truck ode after another is based on the sales at the top end (i.e., Luke/FGL/Jason), then there is no logical justification for ignoring those whose music might appeal to fans of Carrie Underwood and Eric Church, who also sit at the top end of sales in the genre. The genre's next tier of top sellers includes Little Big Town, Miranda Lambert and Zac Brown Band (as well as Blake Shelton). At all levels of the market (superstar, midlevel, and developing), sales show an interest in a much more diverse array of music than today's country format has proven willing to support. And so I think your assertion that radio is simply playing what sells doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I think Uncle Lumpy is much closer to the mark with what he says here: I don't think there is any "brainwashing" behind the latest trend that has ushered in all the Bro-Country act's. But I do believe there has been a very calculated gamble to throw away their core audience , and replace it with youth audience that's been displaced from other genres. I don't believe for a second your average Alan Jackson , Brad Paisley or even Keith Urban fan from five to ten years ago is rapping along with Florida Georgia Line or singing along with the chorus of this crude steaming pile of Donkey doo. Radio & label conglomerates have intentionally sacrificed the audience that built country into the biggest genre of music in America to chase a trend that leaves a very fickle demo graph calling the shots. If you want to know what distinguishes the current state of country radio (not country music) from that in the mid-1990s, I would point to two things. One is that contrary to country radio's emphasis on playlists with multi-generational appeal through 2009 or so, we are now seeing a deliberate emphasis (along the lines of what Uncle Lumpy said) on a younger, male demographic with low tolerance for not only traditional country but also storytelling, themes of family and faith, female voices, and the country-pop sound that became popular in the 1990s. In other words, playlists are being programmed to suit a demographic with much narrower taste than was the case in the mid-late 1990s. The second difference is that, "Murder on Music Row" and the Dixie Chicks' "Long Time Gone" notwithstanding (and it should be pointed out that both are directed at country radio in an era of corporate consolidation, which is really at the heart of why playlists have narrowed even further today), there is an unprecedented level of agreement throughout the industry, from the labels (as evidenced by comments from Scott Borchetta and Vince Gill's recent account of his conversation with a label head) to artists ( here's a partial summary from a few months back, and it's noteworthy that the criticism comes from current superstars to rising talent to veterans) to songwriters, that today's country radio hits are simply too much alike and lacking in depth and quality. Sure, there are defenders of today's hit music, but the conventional wisdom within the industry doesn't support them. Perhaps there is a third difference...the rise of the internet and the mobile space, and the possibilities it gives for those who seeking more variety to discover music that they do like, and to gather as a community to discuss their interest in more variety. Which brings me to this: I know it is frustrating if you don't like the current style of music, but I really don't think anything is going to change it. We can either try to embrace it or find a new style of music to listen to on radio or be happy with your CDs and music on your iPods. But I really think you're fighting a losing battle here. I'm puzzled and concerned by your "battle" formulation here. We're all music fans having a discussion about the state of country radio and about country music in general. Discussion here is not a "battle" with winners and losers, and framing it as you have makes it appear that you think the losers (whoever they are) should accept "defeat" and go away. But that's not how discussion works, in principle or in practice. For one thing, the give & take between a variety of viewpoints is healthy. For another, I think it is clear that many of country radio's critics on this board have found country music, and even the occasional country single, that they can get behind. Moreover, the universe of country music is far wider than country radio, perhaps never more so than now. So too, then, is the universe of country music fan viewpoints, and it's logical that this would be reflected in discussion of current country music singles. There's no good reason to discourage that. The fragmentation comments and rock radio analogy are good discussion fodder...I'm a skeptic on country radio actually fragmenting and the rock radio analogy is part of why I'm a skeptic. But I'll hang on to those thoughts for now because I've gone on long enough in this post. Anyway, to bring this back to Jerrod and this particular single, I'm disappointed by Jerrod's comments about those who dislike his current and previous single, because he seems to have joined the group who would marginalize critics with convenient mischaracterizations of their openness to evolution -- a distraction from the main focus of criticism: the quality and execution of the songs themselves. But at the same time, if the comments from radio personnel in this R.J. Curtis column at All Access are any indication, I don't think "Donkey" is inspiring a great deal of enthusiasm as an extension of the trends of the day. Here are some quotes:These are backed up by the fact that "Donkey," for the moment, isn't exactly taking off, correct?
|
|
Kat5Kind
Gold Member
Joined: May 2014
Posts: 768
|
Post by Kat5Kind on Jun 14, 2014 21:42:12 GMT -5
I meant with my music! ;) I'm glad no one really judges here except on musical tastes. That's the way it should be. Loved the post and I saw an opening to comment! The world would be so much better if music was the only thing people judged others on.
|
|
dajross6
Platinum Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 1,133
|
Post by dajross6 on Jun 14, 2014 22:48:35 GMT -5
I think the biggest difference now than the mid-200s, mid-1990s, mid-1980s etc. is that in past times there was always the old type of music around. In the early 1990s we still had a little George Jones, George Strait, even Conway Twitty and Kenny Rogers. Ten years ago, the traditional torch was carried by 10-15 artists while the genre began to grow. Today, Mr. Strait is still around hanging by a string, and there's a single every now and then that sounds traditional. Nobody will argue music shouldn't change, it's just that it shouldn't evolve all at once, leaving fans of traditional music behind.
The country demographic has always skewed more female and a bit older than the other genres listed. The younger audience will always want different/change, and that's my guess why the genre is changing so quickly - more younger listeners who want it to sound pop.
|
|
matty005
3x Platinum Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 3,423
|
Post by matty005 on Jun 14, 2014 23:17:32 GMT -5
Good points, but I guess my point is that the style of music is hard to sell. AJ is a legend so he still sells. Same with George. But this type of music that sells (FGL, Luke, Blake) are selling. Of course you have not so big acts who don't sell as much, (Jerrod, Tyler Farr, Cole Swindell) but you also had that in the 90s. You had Garth and AJ, and George and Shania and Faith selling HUGE. But you also had acts who were singing that similar styles to those guys but not selling as much (Tracy Byrd, John Michael Montgomery, Collin Raye). I don't think the hard data shows that it is much harder to sell traditional country music (or contemporary country music with substantial ties to traditional country music) than it is formulaic beer/party/truck songs, especially once one controls for radio support. Want to put aside the Alan Jackson example because he's a legend who can sell without radio support? Fine. Explain the disparity between Kacey Musgraves' album/download sales and her airplay. Even now, Kacey Musgraves is outselling the likes of Justin Moore (who has two previous gold albums under his belt) and Thomas Rhett on a weekly basis (among others), having also easily outpaced them overall, and she's doing it with an album over six months older than theirs. The one single of Kacey's that did make the top-10 is nearing platinum sales (and may have met RIAA requirements for platinum certification once streams are factored in), and another single of hers ("Follow Your Arrow") will eventually reach gold sales despite not making the top-40 at country radio. That she isn't receiving more country airplay is clearly a sign that country radio's current target audience differs from her growing fanbase of country, Americana, and pop fans. As much as I am bored by and/or dislike their music, I'm not arguing for Luke, Blake, and Florida-Georgia Line to be banished from the airwaves -- their market impact is such that I understand why radio would still be on board with their mediocrity. What I am saying is that the argument that radio is simply following the market by excluding nearly everything that isn't by a male and about backwoods beer drinking/truck driving/partying with the hotties falters once the sales of those following in their formulaic footsteps are considered. The followers simply aren't making a strong market impact in the album sales department (Jerrod Niemann is but one example. Thomas Rhett, Brett Eldredge, Tyler Farr, Jake Owen, & Chris Young are others). Sure, the followers have gold singles to their credit, but so too do the likes of Jana Kramer (on her only hit so far) and the aforementioned Kacey. In other words, the developing female artists who have gotten top-10 level radio support are also selling, but they are being shut out after one hit. If the argument for supporting one formulaic hick hoppy beer/party/truck ode after another is based on the sales at the top end (i.e., Luke/FGL/Jason), then there is no logical justification for ignoring those whose music might appeal to fans of Carrie Underwood and Eric Church, who also sit at the top end of sales in the genre. The genre's next tier of top sellers includes Little Big Town, Miranda Lambert and Zac Brown Band (as well as Blake Shelton). At all levels of the market (superstar, midlevel, and developing), sales show an interest in a much more diverse array of music than today's country format has proven willing to support. And so I think your assertion that radio is simply playing what sells doesn't hold up under scrutiny. I think Uncle Lumpy is much closer to the mark with what he says here: I don't think there is any "brainwashing" behind the latest trend that has ushered in all the Bro-Country act's. But I do believe there has been a very calculated gamble to throw away their core audience , and replace it with youth audience that's been displaced from other genres. I don't believe for a second your average Alan Jackson , Brad Paisley or even Keith Urban fan from five to ten years ago is rapping along with Florida Georgia Line or singing along with the chorus of this crude steaming pile of Donkey doo. Radio & label conglomerates have intentionally sacrificed the audience that built country into the biggest genre of music in America to chase a trend that leaves a very fickle demo graph calling the shots. If you want to know what distinguishes the current state of country radio (not country music) from that in the mid-1990s, I would point to two things. One is that contrary to country radio's emphasis on playlists with multi-generational appeal through 2009 or so, we are now seeing a deliberate emphasis (along the lines of what Uncle Lumpy said) on a younger, male demographic with low tolerance for not only traditional country but also storytelling, themes of family and faith, female voices, and the country-pop sound that became popular in the 1990s. In other words, playlists are being programmed to suit a demographic with much narrower taste than was the case in the mid-late 1990s. The second difference is that, "Murder on Music Row" and the Dixie Chicks' "Long Time Gone" notwithstanding (and it should be pointed out that both are directed at country radio in an era of corporate consolidation, which is really at the heart of why playlists have narrowed even further today), there is an unprecedented level of agreement throughout the industry, from the labels (as evidenced by comments from Scott Borchetta and Vince Gill's recent account of his conversation with a label head) to artists ( here's a partial summary from a few months back, and it's noteworthy that the criticism comes from current superstars to rising talent to veterans) to songwriters, that today's country radio hits are simply too much alike and lacking in depth and quality. Sure, there are defenders of today's hit music, but the conventional wisdom within the industry doesn't support them. Perhaps there is a third difference...the rise of the internet and the mobile space, and the possibilities it gives for those who seeking more variety to discover music that they do like, and to gather as a community to discuss their interest in more variety. Which brings me to this: I know it is frustrating if you don't like the current style of music, but I really don't think anything is going to change it. We can either try to embrace it or find a new style of music to listen to on radio or be happy with your CDs and music on your iPods. But I really think you're fighting a losing battle here. I'm puzzled and concerned by your "battle" formulation here. We're all music fans having a discussion about the state of country radio and about country music in general. Discussion here is not a "battle" with winners and losers, and framing it as you have makes it appear that you think the losers (whoever they are) should accept "defeat" and go away. But that's not how discussion works, in principle or in practice. For one thing, the give & take between a variety of viewpoints is healthy. For another, I think it is clear that many of country radio's critics on this board have found country music, and even the occasional country single, that they can get behind. Moreover, the universe of country music is far wider than country radio, perhaps never more so than now. So too, then, is the universe of country music fan viewpoints, and it's logical that this would be reflected in discussion of current country music singles. There's no good reason to discourage that. The fragmentation comments and rock radio analogy are good discussion fodder...I'm a skeptic on country radio actually fragmenting and the rock radio analogy is part of why I'm a skeptic. But I'll hang on to those thoughts for now because I've gone on long enough in this post. Anyway, to bring this back to Jerrod and this particular single, I'm disappointed by Jerrod's comments about those who dislike his current and previous single, because he seems to have joined the group who would marginalize critics with convenient mischaracterizations of their openness to evolution -- a distraction from the main focus of criticism: the quality and execution of the songs themselves. But at the same time, if the comments from radio personnel in this R.J. Curtis column at All Access are any indication, I don't think "Donkey" is inspiring a great deal of enthusiasm as an extension of the trends of the day. Here are some quotes:These are backed up by the fact that "Donkey," for the moment, isn't exactly taking off, correct? Please don't be concerned. Fighting a losing battle is a figure of speech. Meaning: If you fight a losing battle, you try to do something even though it can't be done. Some people think that any government that tries to stop people from taking illegal drugs is fighting a losing battle. Sophia is doing everything she can to keep herself looking young, but in the end she'll be fighting a losing battle, of course. Note: This idiom is usually used in one of the continuous tenses, such as "was fighting a losing battle" or "is fighting a losing battle" or "has been fighting a losing battle", and so on. "Discussion here is not a "battle" with winners and losers, and framing it as you have makes it appear that you think the losers (whoever they are) should accept "defeat" and go away. But that's not how discussion works, in principle or in practice." I am not calling ANYONE a winner or a loser. Please refer to my definition of what fighting a losing battle means. I am saying that no matter how much we want the style of music to change it's not going to. See how that ties in to what I am saying? Please let me know via PM if you would like further clarification or to ease your mind or any concerns you may have. And please don't add words to my mouth about how people should go away. I NEVER said anything remotely close to that. Thanks so much, Dudley!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
kml567
Gold Member
Joined: June 2005
Posts: 972
|
Post by kml567 on Jun 14, 2014 23:47:48 GMT -5
I can't wait until Country radio fractures into two. The new "Adult Country" format (NASH Icons) is basically the Country equivalent of "Hot AC", programmed for listeners age 30+ that want to hear plenty of traditional country.
The mainstream format (let's call it "CHR/Country" since it's Top 40 with a twang) is programmed for listeners under age 30 that want to hear plenty of pop-influenced country. Then everyone would be happy! It's a great win-win solution. It worked brilliantly when Urban radio separated into "Urban" and "Urban AC" to please the younger Hip-Hop fans and the older Traditional R&B fans, and it will work well with Country fracturing now to please the Bro-Country fans and the Traditional Country fans.
|
|
dajross6
Platinum Member
Joined: June 2009
Posts: 1,133
|
Post by dajross6 on Jun 15, 2014 0:03:32 GMT -5
^^If you know how to get this going, let us know.
|
|
rsmatto
6x Platinum Member
Joined: December 2008
Posts: 6,529
|
Post by rsmatto on Jun 15, 2014 21:32:36 GMT -5
If this thing peaks at #44 it will restore a tiny bit of radio's credibility for rejecting it! If it goes top 10, then it means the Music Row Terrorists have won! Actually it's current peak is #43 It's far from over too.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 15, 2014 21:45:08 GMT -5
Actually it's current peak is #43 It's far from over too. I wouldn't be so confident. This one has horrible call-out scores and, as evidenced by 43dudleyvillas' post, there are a lot of radio folks who aren't too enthused about this one. It is really, really struggling and hasn't really gained any significant audience over the last 2-3 weeks.
|
|