Category Archives: Commentary

Commentary

Country Exclusive is Back

3 Comments

Well, after a hiatus that wasn’t really meant to happen at all, much less to become so extended, I am happy to return to writing. Thanks to everyone who reached out to me either here or on Twitter; I was humbled by the love shown for CE and for me personally. It is a long and unnecessary and somewhat ongoing story that has kept me from writing for so long, and I’ll try to prevent it from suspending my writing again, certainly for this length of time.

I hope to catch up with 2019 albums, but I would like to wrap up 2018 a little. The year was never meant to end like that, and everything feels a bit unfinished. There were so many great albums last year, including a few I did not get the chance to write about; Jamie Lin Wilson’s was one of the best of the year, and I regret not getting to review it. I can’t tell you exactly how the rankings would have gone at the end of the year. Even at the midyear mark, I refused to rank albums because so many were so close and so good. I can tell you, however, that Country Exclusive’s 2018 Album of the Year is The Tree by Lori McKenna, and if any of you have failed to give that record a proper listen, you’ll only be helping yourself by rectifying that. I cannot even begin to narrow down the many great songs that would have been in contention, so there is no definite Song of the Year.

At the beginning of 2018, I set a goal to attend twelve live shows and write about them for CE. The end result was that I went to eleven, not counting a second Colter Wall show in November and a Jason Eady show in July because I had already written about Eady in 2017. The last two artists I saw were Tyler Childers and Steve Earle, both in December. I fully intended to write about those two shows, Steve Earle’s being one of the best I have seen in 2018 and really ever. Along with the year-end lists, I had considered writing a recap/conclusion of my experiences with live music in 2018. I may still do that if you guys are interested, but maybe it’s too far after the fact to be relevant.

I am trying to catch up with early 2019 releases, but if there is anything you think I may be overlooking, please let me know. As always, I look forward to sharing and discovering more great music with you all!

Commentary

Thirteen Observations from the 2018 CMA awards

5 Comments

Last night’s CMA Awards definitely started out flat and uninteresting, but there were several highlights throughout the evening, especially in the second half of the show. Here are some random notes and observations, in no particular order.

1. Despite the historic, record-breaking, ludicrous run of “Meant to Be,” the CMA chose Chris Stapleton’s “Broken Halos” as Single of the Year. Despite the Stapleton wins becoming considerably stale, the refusal to reward “Meant to Be” for “jumping into country” is a mark of leadership by the CMA, a mark that Billboard has failed to set. This is the CMA drawing a boundary, similar to its denial of Sam Hunt’s “Body Like a Back Road” in 2017. It’s good to see at least some gatekeeping still exists in the industry.

2. And about Chris Stapleton–I am starting to feel like a broken record about this, and I like Stapleton, but he has become a token name just like Miranda Lambert. “Broken Halos” won both Song and Single of the Year, and it’s a fine song, but honestly not worthy of either distinction. Stapleton is becoming an automatic winner for Male Vocalist in the same way that Lambert has been for Female vocalist.

3. Speaking of which, Carrie Underwood won Female Vocalist of the Year, and although her new album is definitely her worst so far, she deserved this over Miranda Lambert.

4. In a victory for women, artists ignored by radio, and songwriters of substance, Kacey Musgraves’ Golden Hour is your 2018 CMA Album of the Year. This is well-deserved, and although controversial for many, it still symbolizes a victory regardless of your thoughts and feelings on the record itself.

5. Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood are great, but this year brought us their most boring, flat monologue to date. “A star is Bored” just bored me. One memorable moment during the monologue, however, came when Paisley remarked that 2018 has been a “great year for men in country music,” and Underwood responded with, “yeah, finally!” It’s good to see this issue at least being addressed by the CMA, if only in comedic fashion.

6. Old Dominion, Dan + Shay, and Thomas Rhett are all still useless and added nothing to the evening.

7. Say what you want about Midland, but they turned in one of the best performances of the night, paying tribute to the Bandit with “Eastbound and Down.” Rare, lovely moment of traditional country on the CMA stage.

8. Pistol Annies brought another actual country moment, with a fun rendition of “Got my Name Changed Back.” Hopefully, this will help the radio single.

9. Good to see Brad Paisley return with new music, and again, to see actual country, with “Bucked Off,” which sounds like a George Strait tribute.

10. Maren Morris managed to hold her own well in the Stapleton collaboration, and as someone who criticized her 2017 CMA performance, I will say she pleasantly surprised me.

11. And speaking of collaborations, Ricky Skaggs arrived on the stage to school everyone about true country and bluegrass. Probably the best moment of the evening.

12. Garth brooks’ love song to Trisha, world premiered on the CMA stage, is boring. Good on Garth for getting the CMA to allow him his own choice of song, and points for coming out with just his guitar as well. I just wish I enjoyed the actual song.

13. Your 2018 CMA Entertainer of the Year is Keith Urban, which is ludicrous on many levels–Keith seemed as shocked by the pronouncement as I was, and I am disgusted that he is being rewarded for something as horrible as Graffiti U.

Please feel free to share your thoughts and comments on the CMA Awards below!

Commentary

On This Eric Church and Gun Control Business

4 Comments

I’m a Second Amendment guy … That’s in the Constitution, it’s people’s right, and I don’t believe it’s negotiable. But nobody should have that many guns and that much ammunition and we don’t know about it. Nobody should have 21 AKs and 10,000 rounds of ammunition and we don’t know who they are. Something’s gotta be done so that a person can’t have an armory and pin down a Las Vegas SWAT team for six minutes. That’s fucked up.

These words came from Eric Church in a recent interview with Rolling stone when he was asked if his feelings about guns had changed after the Las Vegas shooting. Church goes on to say, when asked why he thinks nothing has been done:

I blame the lobbyists. And the biggest in the gun world is the NRA. … I’m a Second Amendment guy, … but I feel like they’ve been a bit of a roadblock. I don’t care who you are – you shouldn’t have that kind of power over elected officials. To me it’s cut-and-dried: The gun-show [loophole] would not exist if it weren’t for the NRA, so at this point in time, if I was an NRA member, I would think I had more of a problem than the solution. I would question myself real hard about what I wanted to be in the next three, four, five years. … I don’t care [about the blowback from fans]. Right’s right and wrong’s wrong. I don’t understand why we have to fear a group [like the NRA]. It’s asinine. Why can’t we come together and solve one part of this? Start with the bump stocks and the gun shows. Shut a couple of these down. I do think that will matter a little bit. I think it will save some lives.

That blowback from Eric Church fans has come in spades, particularly on social media, where fans are boycotting the singer’s music for not standing with the NRA, and others are in the “artists should shut up and sing” mindset. The beautiful and ironic thing about this is that any true fan of Eric Church, or anyone who read the article, would know Church doesn’t give a damn whether these people agree with him or not. But the bigger problem is the overwhelming way we continue to let politics divide us, and seep into the world of music which is an art form that can bring us all together and cross all political and cultural lines.

First of all, isn’t it sad that we’ve become a society which seeks out the political commentary in whatever we’re reading while simultaneously ignoring everything else? Eric Church does an interview here about Garth Brooks’ decision to lip sync at the 2017 CMA Awards, a major surgery and near-death experience, and the organic nature of country music, yet all anyone can discuss is his political comments. Shania Twain did an interview recently where she opened up about her childhood and horrific instances of abuse, and all anyone could talk about was her comment at the end saying that she understood why people would vote for Trump. But focusing on Church, even among the political stuff, he discusses Trump, immigration, and most notably, his unwillingness to vote for either side in 2016 and distrust of any politician. Yet for all these so-called fans, nothing matters except his stances on gun control.

And by the way, Eric Church didn’t make some radical statement about banning guns; he emphasized support for the right to bear arms. There are people on the opposite side of this debate, especially in the media, who have charged country artists with stronger positions on gun control to come out and speak on the issue. Maybe this reaction from Church’s fans will explain why they don’t. No artist should have to speak on any issue he or she doesn’t want to, and by the same token, every artist has the right to free speech and free thought, and every artist is a human being with their own ideologies. NO one should be obligated to take a certain political stance, but no one should be told to “shut up and sing.”

To Eric Church fans specifically, if you’re giving up his music because of his politics or his willingness to stand up for his beliefs, you had no grasp on Eric Church as an artist or a person in the first place. He’s made a career out of speaking his mind and going against the grain. And as music fans in general, how sad it would be to limit our tastes in music based on the artists’ politics; Jason Isbell wrote my 2017 song of the Year, but should I boycott his music because I don’t agree with a lot of his politics? The inability to separate Eric Church or any artist from a political viewpoint says more about the fan than the artist, for it signals that these fans are not really free thinkers capable of opening their minds. And whether or not you agree with Church, he’s being a free thinker here, not swayed by society or what people might think of his opinions.

Finally, music and other forms of artistic expression have a power like nothing else to bring people together. Artists like the aforementioned Isbell or the notoriously outspoken Sturgill Simpson may choose to use their music to speak about their politics. Others may use it as an escape from the ugly, divisive world that surrounds us. Music is above such things as people’s political views, and it’s the one thing that can draw us all together. Eric Church even speaks of this in his interview, a point that many have either not read or chosen to filter out of their brains for the sake of their own agendas, stating that he loves that the people who come to his shows are from many different backgrounds and cultures and hold all kinds of political viewpoints, but in that space, they are all united. That is what we should have taken from his interview if nothing else–that music holds the power to heal our divisive culture, and it’s a shame that so many are using his words to pull us further and further apart.

Commentary

Walking the Line Between Being a Critic and a Music Fan

2 Comments

This is something I’ve been thinking about for awhile, but which was most recently inspired by Zack, of about a thousand outlets but currently of The Singing Wilderness, as one of his main focuses there, after being more of a “critic” with The Musical Divide, is now to step back and be a “music fan.” It’s a question I’ve thought about at different times and once felt it was a difficult line to walk, and it’s probably different for each reviewer/critic/blogger/etc., but for me, I think the key is to be both. I don’t think they have to be separate, and indeed, separating them results in dishonest, unhelpful criticism.

There is a statement on our About page specifically saying I am not a critic with ideas of what country “should” sound like, but rather a music fan disheartened by the lack of substance and country sound in the country genre. Although that was written in 2015, and my thoughts about the genre thing have changed quite a bit, the point is still the same. I am a music fan, and that’s what prompted me to begin this journey. I was a disenchanted country fan, and I was discovering all these cool underground/independent artists that needed more attention, that needed to be exposed to people like me who felt they were losing the music they loved. It’s as a fan that I was disheartened by Zac Brown’s change of direction on Jekyll + Hyde, and as a fan that I was comforted by the sound of him returning the band to their roots on Welcome Home but was ultimately underwhelmed by it. It’s as an unapologetic Ashley Monroe fan that I can say Sparrow is a disappointing album because the problems can be summed up in the fact that the style doesn’t flatter the Ashley Monroe we’ve all come to love.

It’s also as a music fan that I wrote about the latest Brothers Osborne album–I can see the criticisms with it in a technical sense, and I could have written a review like that, but it wouldn’t have been an honest assessment of my thoughts on the music. I love that record, and even now, I’m wondering why I gave it an 8.5 only when I can see nothing wrong with it as a listener. It will be one of my most played albums of the year, and if I’d been totally honest with myself, I would have rated it even higher. Honesty is the bedrock upon which Country Exclusive was founded–because traditional country, pop country, Texas country, Americana, all of them lack a shocking amount of honesty right now–and that was one time I didn’t follow my own advice completely. But ratings are nothing more than a helpful tool anyway, and my review reflects how I felt; I love that album despite the technical flaws that exist. We should all strive to write as music fans first because it makes us more honest, it reflects a true diversity in opinions about music, and it’s boring to live in an echo chamber. It makes a “critical consensus” more impressive if we seek to write and review this way because if we all end up agreeing, we know the music has to be incredible, rather than knowing we all agree because of some ill-conceived mindset where we feel like we have to do so and share the exact opinions of everyone else.

That said, why does writing or talking about music as a fan need to be different from being a critic? Whether we write a lengthy review or record a YouTube reaction, or whether we just sit down and listen to an album as a fan of good music, we’re all critics in a sense. Yes, we’re all critics, you read that right. When you put in the aforementioned Ashley Monroe record and think, “I don’t like this polish,” whether you write down a thousand-word review on it or not, you’ve made a critical assessment about that album. This goes back to the recent article about reviews and artist’s mental health, and the ultimate reason that article is ridiculous is that everyone listens to music with a critical ear. We all gravitate toward certain sounds and styles, and none of us think everything is good or enjoyable. If we eliminate critical reviews, all we’re doing is lying to ourselves because music fans are making critical decisions on their own just by listening. Not everyone is ever going to like everything you record, and music criticism by reviewers is simply a more in-depth opinion given by one listener. The value of criticism itself is something I could write a whole other piece on, but the tag line of this blog best illustrates it–“the most destructive criticism is indifference.” The worst criticism you can give art is to ignore it, especially in today’s cluttered marketplace, and moreover, calling everything good and giving participation trophies only creates an echo chamber where nothing is praised and rewarded for its quality–the other half of this quote, originally from RC Edwards, was, “that’s a recipe for bad art” in response to a tweet that condemned negativity in reviews. Again, that’s a different tangent entirely, but the truth is that we’re all critical of music if we’re listening to it beyond meaningless, disposable background noise and treating it like the wonderful art form that it is, and to deny that reality is a lie and cheapens the value of music.

Writing and talking about music, though, does tend to make you a more open-minded listener and a better critic, or at least it should. It broadens your perspective and allows you to see what others see in things, even if you can’t see those things yourself. It allows you to go from, “I don’t like this polish” on Ashley Monroe’s record to really understanding why you don’t; it’s as a fan that I can say it doesn’t suit Ashley Monroe, and as a critic that I can understand the appeal for some–the songwriting on that record is superb, and if you’re a fan of the style, you might really enjoy it. It’s as a fan that Brandi Carlile’s latest hasn’t held up for me, but as an open-minded critic/reviewer that I can see its appeal. As a music fan, Gretchen Peters’ latest album is too depressing for me, but there’s not much inherently “wrong” with it. It will end up being featured in Memorable Songs because I have nothing to say as a reviewer other than, “this album depresses the ever-loving hell out of me,” but I can understand how many would love it, especially if they’re in the right mindset. Critic and music fan are really just two sides of the same coin–if I write a glowing review about Peters because I feel like I have to, it’s not honest and erodes my integrity, but if I write a scathing indictment about how it’s bad because it depresses me, this is unfair to the quality of the art, as well as to the people who may really enjoy this. I said I wanted to use this outlet to promote deserving artists, and if I exclude Brandi Carlile and Gretchen Peters from this because of a matter of taste, that makes me nothing more than a fan promoting my favorite artists.

At the end of the day, we all became reviewers/critics because we were music fans. We’d have to be in order to have any desire to listen to all this music, much less to write about it or talk about it at length. If you lose sight of that as a critic, you need to step back and think about who you are as a listener and why you’re doing this in the first place. At the same time, as fans, we are all automatically critics, and this is displayed in our tastes in vocals, instrumentation, lyrics, or which of those elements matters to us most when we listen to a piece of music. We cannot be one without the other, and this is how we should talk about music. If you can’t admit to liking something despite its flaws or what the rest of the echo chamber thinks, you’ve lost sight of the love for music and the unique perspective your opinions bring to the table. If you’re so close-minded that you can’t see past your own perspective and can only view music through the narrow lens of your personal tastes, then you’ve lost sight of the value of music and its ability to touch different people in so many different ways. I used to think that being a critic and being a music fan were different, that you could choose to write or talk about music in one way or the other, and that it could be a hard line to walk. But the truth is that they go hand in hand, and only when you realize that can you be both completely honest and open-minded as a listener, and really, that’s the ultimate goal with all of this, to become better music listeners. It’s not about being a critic versus being a music fan, it’s about being yourself, which is ultimately both, and doing this for the love of the music.

Commentary

Sarah Shook Makes Perfect Case for the Importance of Vocal Technique

Leave a comment

In an interview ahead of Sarah Shook & the Disarmers’ new album, Shook had some interesting things to say about her preparation for this record. She says that she went back and listened to their first album, Sidelong, in an effort to see how she could improve.

It was good, she decided, but knew it could be better. She studied vocal technique so that she could hit notes more accurately while in the studio, changing the way she sings and how she controls her voice. And the difference is palpable. “Even just the control of my voice and the way I sing sounds completely different to me now…I really wanted to be singing my best.”

Indeed, I’d agree with the article that the difference between the two albums is tangible, but I’ll save my comments on that for my review of Years after its release tomorrow. However, the point here is that Sarah Shook recognized the importance of her vocal delivery, counting it just as significant as her songwriting and musicianship, even seeking to improve what she could. Anyone at all familiar with Sarah Shook & the Disarmers knows that hers isn’t a polished or even a pleasant vocal tone, but on this album, the songs seem to work in spite of that. It’s because she worked with what she had. A singer cannot change his or her tone, but other things can be improved, like pitch accuracy and breath control, and Shook understood that and treated her vocals like another necessary part of her craft.

This should be an obvious thing, but it’s something many artists in the independent scenes could take a lesson from, as well as something many critics/reviewers/etc don’t commentate on enough. With tone being something a vocalist has no control over, it’s easy to see why reviewers don’t address vocal issues often, but just like any other instrument, it can be improved. Vivian Leva doesn’t have to add the inflections in her voice that make some of her songs hard to listen to. Bonnie Montgomery’s album would have been better had she studied breath support techniques and given more power to her lyrics, many of which were lyrics that would have been delivered better with a punch. Jade Jackson released a record last year with engaging melodies, great songwriting, and varied instrumentation, and yes, her tone can be off-putting, but she could have gone a long way toward helping that by seeking to improve her pitch accuracy. Anyone who isn’t completely tone deaf can improve these skills. I could list a lot more examples, and indeed, I’ve wanted to write this post for a very long time, just as I wrote one about the lost art of melody writing by independent/Americana songwriters, but until now, I didn’t have an example of someone doing it right, a proof that greater attention to vocals can be felt from project to project. Sarah Shook’s hard work in preparation of this record is that proof, and artists should aspire to this.

As for the reason they’re not aspiring to it more often, I think it goes back to the backlash I talked about in the melody post, as countless reality shows hold up vocal ability as the pinnacle of great musicianship. There was a second-place finisher on American Idol several seasons before its finale that, when recording an original song for her final performance, couldn’t identify a D7 chord when she was asked to sing on it in the studio. This is very basic musical knowledge, and stuff like this is incredibly insulting to musicians and songwriters who make music their life’s work. Although singing is a great talent, it’s sometimes looked upon as somehow secondary in music, particularly when amazing vocalists win these shows and then go on to do nothing whatsoever afterword because they have no knowledge of the business, no experience as a musician, and nothing profound to say as an artist. Artistry is much more than outstanding vocal talent, and these shows are an excellent display of this. It’s understandable, then, that the reaction from the independent scenes is to glorify songwriting and musicianship and hold them up higher than vocal ability. After all, we’re living in the age of the song, and adequate vocals are fine as long as you have something important to say.

But the age of the song shouldn’t mean that we’re not also living in the age of the singer. Think how much more beautiful some of these songs would be if their singers expanded their ranges and thereby could write more interesting melodies. This is why the two issues are interconnected. It’s why Courtney Marie Andrews’ songs are especially poignant; yes, she writes beautifully, but it’s her soaring vocals and the way she handles dynamics and inflections that gives them extra life. “Took You Up” is already a fine song, but it’s excellent because of the way she sings the chorus, her voice soaring for the high notes of “ain’t got much, but we got each other,” and then carefully controlled and subdued for the final, “I took you up,” sustaining the note to create just the right amount of emotion. Emotive interpreting and vocal delivery are art forms just like songwriting and musicality, and they should be respected as such.

That’s what Sarah Shook has done here; she’s respected the art of singing. She’s understood that her tone might not be a conventional one to which people would normally gravitate, and she’s done her best to improve what she can. As a vocalist, that’s all you can do; you can’t change the tone and vocal quality God gave you, nor should singers wish to because that’s what makes them unique and distinctive and stand out among the crowd. But the voice is an instrument, and it can be perfected just like any other. Dynamics, breath support, pitch, range, all of these elements can be improved–and as for reviewers, if you can criticize a guitar for being out of tune or being drowned out in the mix, or say electronic drums don’t work on a certain song, then why should you hesitate to share your thoughts on and criticisms of this particular instrument as well?…but I digress. Singers should respect their instrument instead of treating it like some sort of secondary element, simply a vehicle to convey their words. Rather, it should be a vehicle to take their words and transform them into something even more powerful, and when vocalists care about it this way, the results shine regardless of the singer’s tone. Sarah Shook proves that, and many artists could take a lesson from the dedication she’s given to her craft.