quote:
Blame it on record executives who decided that the only way the country genre could survive was to make it a full-fledged extension of pop music. They brought in artists who had no other desire to be on country radio than that it was the fastest way to fame. To fit those artists and the new goal of country to be "secondary pop", the record labels' songwriting machines began to crank out nothing but glorified pop songs and sentimental crap that appeals to women.
But in a way, maybe we should also thank those record execs for saving country music. Some aspects of Nashville country had been toeing the gray area between pop and country since the 60's and 70's, so when the genre decided to go whole-hog into making pop music, a distinctive split occurred. When Willie and Waylon left Nashville for Austin, they started an underground movement. But at the turn of the millenium, that movement we know as "Texas country" or "alt country" became a full-fledged genre, and instead of getting scant airplay on stations in college towns and at night, it broke into the regular rotation on the big-time stations in the state (and even beyond). Heck, it's even got its own chart now, and it's in the process of slowly taking over the Billboard mainstream country chart. I don't think it's totally unreasonable to suggest that Nashville's inadvertent creation of the Texas country monster may lead to its own demise.
WestTx,
Took me a while to digest your post (which are always well thought out, and kudos to you for that). Obviously my biggest exception to your points would be that radio is and has been more of a culprit than Nashville record companies, although we here in TN certainly aren't blameless in the matter. There are a lot of other contributing factors that played a part in the current state of affairs, and I'll try to briefly address what I can.
What eveyone has to keep in perspective is that the music business is just that...a business...and like any business, the object is to make money, ideally as much money as you can. Chet Atkins said on many occasions that they came up with the Nashville Sound of the 60s & 70s for no other reason than to try to be viable. In those days, country music flat didn't sell. Oh sure, it was played on the radio a lot, but record companies don't make one dime from radio play, and for years a very successful country album might sell 50,000 copies or so. Even when I moved to Nashville in the early 80s, there was an Earl Thomas Conley album that had 5 #1 singles on it, and it barely sold 100,000 units. Compare those numbers to the sales of pop and/or rock acts from the same time frame, and you can see why Nashville had what I refer to as "L.A. envy". In Chet's case, he worked for RCA Records, and his numbers had to impress the bean counters in the home office, accountants who didn't take in to consideration the differences in the country market and rock or pop.
So basically you have record execs who have families to feed, and to do that they need to keep their jobs. In my experience, when you are constantly worried about getting fired (and the turnover in the music industry is unbelieveable), you tend to play it safe rather than take chances. And what is safe? Safe is what has proven to work. That's why after Garth Brooks hit, you saw so many look-alike/sound-alike acts get signed. If you look at it from that perspective, it's easy to see why most of the cutting edge acts are indies, and why most of the major label stuff has a large degree of 'sameness' to it.
I wish it wasn't such a broken system, and as I said in previous posts, it's something we here in Nashville b*tch about constantly. Unfortunately the combination of art and commerce has never been seamless and seldom pretty.
One last footnote regarding commerce stifling creativity. A very famous songwriter once complained that "I am paid too much for what I do and too little for what I COULD do". That songwriter was Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart.
See, it's nothing new.
[This message has been edited by rbtexan (edited 6/26/2008 5:21p).]