However, I have to say, it's a little disappointing you have decided to have a discussion that only goes one way.
You say in this article, "When we talk about saving country music, it seems we are trying to go back in time to a period of purity and simplicity." But nobody has said that. The only person that is saying that is you, because it tees up the argument you want to make.
Instead of making assumptions of what we're talking about when we say "saving country music," why don't you just ask? I've spent the last 18 years running a website called "Saving Country Music" and published over 9,000 articles under that name. Perhaps I have some insight into it beyond you taking a surface inference from an Instagram post about Zach Top and expounding upon it because it easily fits your preconceived notions. Or, spend some more time actually reading the content of the website to the point where you could cite it as a source on your article that mentions 'saving country music' in the title. If you would have done so, you would have never distilled what I mean whenever I use the phrase 'saving country music' to, "trying to go back in time to a period of purity and simplicity."
By the way, attempts to over-intellectualize something that derives its beauty and meaning from simplicity is not only fruitless, it can be elevated to the level of being outright insulting to the art form.
If you want to know what saving country music means to me, what it means to the thousands of people who read the website every day, perhaps come to the website, poke around, send an email and ask that question.
But please, don't assume. Saving Country Music is not an Instagram account.
Thanks, Trigger, for stopping by. I read your site at least a few times a week, and honestly, I believe most of what you're doing is great. But your particular point of view about an art form worthy of intellectualization and critical debate is awfully simple. Most notably, you only consider the surface issues, the music or the end goal of your mission to save country music as you define it.
Two Examples:
1) Your argument that women's representation is the last thing we need to do to save country music boils down to a simple issue of economics. However, it ignores the entire foundation upon which those economics are considered. Why do men make more money making this music? It has nothing to do with salad and everything to do with Foucault. Power dynamics are critical to this discussion and must be considered simultaneously as the rest of the issue because it isn't just a simple question about art but rather about the value and power between people. In this case, the medium is country music.
2) Your review of Patrick Haggerty's last album considered the music and not its place within country music history or queer culture. It would be almost as if you dismissed some or all of the American Recordings as sung by an old man with a weaker voice than it once was. There is context -- and it must be considered.
Finally, Saving Country Music is an inherently conservative statement (something I addressed at length in my most recent post). You are protecting something old against something new. Evolution is going to happen, but how it happens is key. Folks in the 1950s would likely balk at many of the folks you're highlighting as saviors, likely not because of the music.
You have been doing this for a long time and have made a difference in this industry. I respect that. But to dismiss my points by saying I'm disrespecting you and your work is pretty defensive for a guy who has 9,000 published articles and thousands of page views -- I'm excited to hit 300 people reading my newsletter.
Your points are clear: You want country music to sound like what you define as the right kind of country music. But you don't get to define that for everyone -- you get to do it for you and those who believe the same things about this art. Hence, my dive into this topic from the point of view of collective frameworks. Understanding how we all define these seemingly simplistic concepts can help us develop a better definition for something that has changed significantly since its inception. If you don't like that, that is fine.
Ignoring the complexities of this simple art form is insulting to those who make it, want to make it but are shut out, and the work you do to conserve its value as a critical component of American and Western culture.
Also, my comments are open, I respond to messages, and I'm open to any kind of debate you'd like to have. I'd love to draft off your fame in our little fish pond.
1) I never said that the Women in Music issue boils down to simple economics, while as you say, I ignore the power dynamics. What I said is that you can't ignore the economic realities that feed those power dynamics and the perceptions of women in country. If you do not acknowledge them, let alone address them, you will never solve that problem. We've spent over a decade chasing down boogeymen keeping women down, some that are real, and some that are figments of people's imaginations. That strategy has colossally failed women. So you can keep citing Foucault, or you can get to work building pragmatic solutions to solve that problem.
The dirty little secret is that some who've put themselves in charge of that issue don't want it solved because that's how they draw social clout, and some, funding. It's become a cottage industry to "support women" while actual support for them evaporates.
2) Strange take on the Patrick Haggerty album. It was terrible, and you know it, and anyone who was honest with themselves knows it. "But that's not the point." Yes, it is. The people around him let him down, and he deserved better.
The fact that I'm even talking about Patrick Haggerty or Women in Music in what you claim is a "conservative" outlet (and deem that perspective problematic) should tell you much more than what you seem to want to acknowledge.
"You are protecting something old against something new. Evolution is going to happen, but how it happens is key."
Again, you're assigning principles to "Saving Country Music" that you want to be present as opposed to the ones that actually are, and talking down your nose. Saving Country Music is advocating for women, LGBT artists, Black and Brown artists. Saving Country Music is understanding that country music must evolve, and advocating for the creators who are doing so with heart and honesty. Read the recent review for Lola Kirke for goodness sakes, or Billy Strings winning Artist of the Year.
I truly do appreciate the conversation and discussion. But where I take offense is when people assign opinions to myself or my work based off of surface inferences instead of the work itself, and this ALWAYS happens in these morally-preening intellectual exercises.
Go read the comments of my last articles on Morgan Wallen performing on "SNL" and see how many commenters are yelling at me for being "woke."
You arguments here are a reduction, and the assignment of political motivations that are either not there, or in other instances, outright counter from the reality of things.
<i>What I said is that you can't ignore the economic realities that feed those power dynamics and the perceptions of women in country. </i>
This assumes the economics are the core of the power dynamics, not the other way around. I don't disagree that some stand to gain from the issue being unresolved, but some might say you also gain from country music always having something to be saved from...
The conservative label isn't a question of politics but rather philosophy, and not a philosophy that is problematic -- it's just not my perspective. People calling you woke for saying Wallen leaving the stage is a non-issue is pretty intellectually lazy. However, the singular focus and lack of context diminish your point, especially within the review of the last Haggerty album and the last issue to save country music being more equity in the industry. Lola Kirke makes great country and country-adjacent music, and your review is fair. It's clear you take real time and care with each of the hundreds of albums you review, but I'm not sure where that fits into this conversation.
We have gone deep down a rabbit hole that wasn't the core of my article about Top. Your article, where you said something to the effect that you could stop trying to save country music because of Zach Top, is what started my fascination with him being this savior figure. It made me question what I heard about Neo-Traditionalists being "hat acts" with no soul or sincerity. It seemed hard to stomach this idea that someone emulating -- quite directly -- could be seen as saving authentic country music when what he's emulating was seen as a deviation from country music when it first came out.
Last week's post gets into where I feel short in explaining this in my first article on the subject -- and there was a lot to get into. I missed the mark in many places, and our back-and-forth supports this analysis.
I mean no disrespect and only wish to continue what has been a respectful, if heated, exchange. If I wanted to enter the echo chamber, I wouldn't have tagged you in these conversations and would have just alluded to your point of view, not posted links back to your coverage.
I want to debate these issues because I think doing so is good for the industry, music and culture -- if we speak only with the people we agree with, we get nowhere. If you disagree, you're free to leave this unanswered and go back to your side of the pond. I'll keep reading your stuff, and you can go back to ignoring me.
I appreciate the comment and always love to see other people's perspectives and opinions. There might be a better format for this conversation for both of us. I just felt the need to chime in here because after many years, my patience for folks assigning opinions to me has worn thin. I give enough strong, controversial opinions to defend. Having to defend others assigned to me is even more difficult.
Hey Country Cutler,
First off, thanks for the discussion.
However, I have to say, it's a little disappointing you have decided to have a discussion that only goes one way.
You say in this article, "When we talk about saving country music, it seems we are trying to go back in time to a period of purity and simplicity." But nobody has said that. The only person that is saying that is you, because it tees up the argument you want to make.
Instead of making assumptions of what we're talking about when we say "saving country music," why don't you just ask? I've spent the last 18 years running a website called "Saving Country Music" and published over 9,000 articles under that name. Perhaps I have some insight into it beyond you taking a surface inference from an Instagram post about Zach Top and expounding upon it because it easily fits your preconceived notions. Or, spend some more time actually reading the content of the website to the point where you could cite it as a source on your article that mentions 'saving country music' in the title. If you would have done so, you would have never distilled what I mean whenever I use the phrase 'saving country music' to, "trying to go back in time to a period of purity and simplicity."
By the way, attempts to over-intellectualize something that derives its beauty and meaning from simplicity is not only fruitless, it can be elevated to the level of being outright insulting to the art form.
If you want to know what saving country music means to me, what it means to the thousands of people who read the website every day, perhaps come to the website, poke around, send an email and ask that question.
But please, don't assume. Saving Country Music is not an Instagram account.
Thanks, Trigger, for stopping by. I read your site at least a few times a week, and honestly, I believe most of what you're doing is great. But your particular point of view about an art form worthy of intellectualization and critical debate is awfully simple. Most notably, you only consider the surface issues, the music or the end goal of your mission to save country music as you define it.
Two Examples:
1) Your argument that women's representation is the last thing we need to do to save country music boils down to a simple issue of economics. However, it ignores the entire foundation upon which those economics are considered. Why do men make more money making this music? It has nothing to do with salad and everything to do with Foucault. Power dynamics are critical to this discussion and must be considered simultaneously as the rest of the issue because it isn't just a simple question about art but rather about the value and power between people. In this case, the medium is country music.
2) Your review of Patrick Haggerty's last album considered the music and not its place within country music history or queer culture. It would be almost as if you dismissed some or all of the American Recordings as sung by an old man with a weaker voice than it once was. There is context -- and it must be considered.
Finally, Saving Country Music is an inherently conservative statement (something I addressed at length in my most recent post). You are protecting something old against something new. Evolution is going to happen, but how it happens is key. Folks in the 1950s would likely balk at many of the folks you're highlighting as saviors, likely not because of the music.
You have been doing this for a long time and have made a difference in this industry. I respect that. But to dismiss my points by saying I'm disrespecting you and your work is pretty defensive for a guy who has 9,000 published articles and thousands of page views -- I'm excited to hit 300 people reading my newsletter.
Your points are clear: You want country music to sound like what you define as the right kind of country music. But you don't get to define that for everyone -- you get to do it for you and those who believe the same things about this art. Hence, my dive into this topic from the point of view of collective frameworks. Understanding how we all define these seemingly simplistic concepts can help us develop a better definition for something that has changed significantly since its inception. If you don't like that, that is fine.
Ignoring the complexities of this simple art form is insulting to those who make it, want to make it but are shut out, and the work you do to conserve its value as a critical component of American and Western culture.
Also, my comments are open, I respond to messages, and I'm open to any kind of debate you'd like to have. I'd love to draft off your fame in our little fish pond.
So a couple of things:
1) I never said that the Women in Music issue boils down to simple economics, while as you say, I ignore the power dynamics. What I said is that you can't ignore the economic realities that feed those power dynamics and the perceptions of women in country. If you do not acknowledge them, let alone address them, you will never solve that problem. We've spent over a decade chasing down boogeymen keeping women down, some that are real, and some that are figments of people's imaginations. That strategy has colossally failed women. So you can keep citing Foucault, or you can get to work building pragmatic solutions to solve that problem.
The dirty little secret is that some who've put themselves in charge of that issue don't want it solved because that's how they draw social clout, and some, funding. It's become a cottage industry to "support women" while actual support for them evaporates.
2) Strange take on the Patrick Haggerty album. It was terrible, and you know it, and anyone who was honest with themselves knows it. "But that's not the point." Yes, it is. The people around him let him down, and he deserved better.
The fact that I'm even talking about Patrick Haggerty or Women in Music in what you claim is a "conservative" outlet (and deem that perspective problematic) should tell you much more than what you seem to want to acknowledge.
"You are protecting something old against something new. Evolution is going to happen, but how it happens is key."
Again, you're assigning principles to "Saving Country Music" that you want to be present as opposed to the ones that actually are, and talking down your nose. Saving Country Music is advocating for women, LGBT artists, Black and Brown artists. Saving Country Music is understanding that country music must evolve, and advocating for the creators who are doing so with heart and honesty. Read the recent review for Lola Kirke for goodness sakes, or Billy Strings winning Artist of the Year.
I truly do appreciate the conversation and discussion. But where I take offense is when people assign opinions to myself or my work based off of surface inferences instead of the work itself, and this ALWAYS happens in these morally-preening intellectual exercises.
Go read the comments of my last articles on Morgan Wallen performing on "SNL" and see how many commenters are yelling at me for being "woke."
You arguments here are a reduction, and the assignment of political motivations that are either not there, or in other instances, outright counter from the reality of things.
As I noted, I read your stuff.
<i>What I said is that you can't ignore the economic realities that feed those power dynamics and the perceptions of women in country. </i>
This assumes the economics are the core of the power dynamics, not the other way around. I don't disagree that some stand to gain from the issue being unresolved, but some might say you also gain from country music always having something to be saved from...
The conservative label isn't a question of politics but rather philosophy, and not a philosophy that is problematic -- it's just not my perspective. People calling you woke for saying Wallen leaving the stage is a non-issue is pretty intellectually lazy. However, the singular focus and lack of context diminish your point, especially within the review of the last Haggerty album and the last issue to save country music being more equity in the industry. Lola Kirke makes great country and country-adjacent music, and your review is fair. It's clear you take real time and care with each of the hundreds of albums you review, but I'm not sure where that fits into this conversation.
We have gone deep down a rabbit hole that wasn't the core of my article about Top. Your article, where you said something to the effect that you could stop trying to save country music because of Zach Top, is what started my fascination with him being this savior figure. It made me question what I heard about Neo-Traditionalists being "hat acts" with no soul or sincerity. It seemed hard to stomach this idea that someone emulating -- quite directly -- could be seen as saving authentic country music when what he's emulating was seen as a deviation from country music when it first came out.
Last week's post gets into where I feel short in explaining this in my first article on the subject -- and there was a lot to get into. I missed the mark in many places, and our back-and-forth supports this analysis.
I mean no disrespect and only wish to continue what has been a respectful, if heated, exchange. If I wanted to enter the echo chamber, I wouldn't have tagged you in these conversations and would have just alluded to your point of view, not posted links back to your coverage.
I want to debate these issues because I think doing so is good for the industry, music and culture -- if we speak only with the people we agree with, we get nowhere. If you disagree, you're free to leave this unanswered and go back to your side of the pond. I'll keep reading your stuff, and you can go back to ignoring me.
Donnie,
I appreciate the comment and always love to see other people's perspectives and opinions. There might be a better format for this conversation for both of us. I just felt the need to chime in here because after many years, my patience for folks assigning opinions to me has worn thin. I give enough strong, controversial opinions to defend. Having to defend others assigned to me is even more difficult.
Take care,
--Trigger