I’m back with my regular feature on Country Music News Blog now, with my two cents on the problems with major country award shows, and more specifically the artists who should win and don’t.
I’m really interested to know what all of you think about my choices, my stance, and who you would like to see winning more country awards, be it CMAs, ACMs, ACAs or CMTs, so let me know in the comments, tweet me, or comment on the article I’ve linked. Enjoy!
For those of you who love a TV talent show (don’t lie – I know you do!) here’s a neat infographic with all the compare and contrast information between American Idol, The X Factor USA and The Voice US. What’s more, there’s some little factoids concerning your favorite country judges. Click the thumbnail to expand.
This infographic was sent to me by Eddie Duncan, who made it (co-edited by Cable.tv), and you can follow him on Twitter @Eddie20Ford.
Hello everyone! Don’t worry, I haven’t forgotten FTCR. I will get an article posted specifically here soon (in fact, I’m aiming for it in the next couple of days). For now, here’s a new one on ukCOUNTRYmusic.net, about country music on reality shows (focusing on but not limited to the UK), and whether increased exposure on these shows is a good thing or not. See what conclusion I come to.
I’ve never listened to Eric Church before. Apart from, of course, when I catch the odd song on country radio, but in that way it’s only casual listening and I can’t even remember what ‘Springsteen’ sounds like (only that it feels like a total rip-off of ‘Tim McGraw’, the singer of which sent Eric her first gold record… seems suspicious to me). I have recently become a fan of Blake Shelton, so when he first tweeted the Keepin’ It Country link to the comments Eric had made, I was already biased. But, naturally, my sense of reason is always going to override if necessary, and of course, it didn’t in this case.
I had always heard of Eric Church but I didn’t know much about him, apart from the fact that he seemed to be fairly commercially successful. So after reading the entirety of the Rolling Stone interview I am definitely put off listening to him. Why? Because he sounds like a dick.
Much of the interview is full of rebellion, of rock music caches and cliches, of an ‘I don’t give a shit’ attitude, and he came across as quite aggressive, not in a good way. I have no time for people who think it’s cool not to care about anything and who think making music is an excuse to go round being dickheads and a nuisance to everyone else. I mean, it makes more sense in rock music, for a start, where people accept that most musicians are going to be assholes.
For example, quotes such as “Church and his crew drink so much Jack Daniel’s that the company makes him his own bottles with a medallion of his face, and he sells autographed empties at his merch stand at shows for $200 each”, do not make me respect him. I am all for getting drunk every so often and having a good time on the road but to rip off crazy fans? I suppose it’s smart in a way it just seems like he doesn’t care for the fans. He also claims to be pretty drunk each time he performs, which I just think is disrespectful to the fans, who have paid a lot of money for tickets, travel and often hotel stays just to see him play, and he’s pissed. He claims it’s in a good way, but I’d ask for my money back if an artist I went to see played drunk, because they’re not playing to their full capacity, it’d be shoddier than it could be. If fans are paying that much for a show that is full of pyrotechnics and fancy stuff, surely the music itself should be up to par?
Further on in the interview, he doesn’t appear to keen on keeping in touch with the fans. Apparently he’s out of the meet and greets room in less than 10 minutes, and he doesn’t like the fame aspect, or the publicity. Little bit hypocritical for someone working within mainstream country, and who claims to have worked very hard for a long time to get to that success, don’t you think? It seems like a mass of contradictions here, particularly for someone who seems to want to work in a mainly rock terrain. I have no grounding for this but I suspect his leaning towards country is to cash in on the huge market that can only be tapped by playing in this genre, as many people are exclusively country fans, even in this day and age. However feel free to prove me wrong, as I accept I know little about him.
In addition, he is focused on the figures, “[he] majored in marketing, which may explain his fixation on demographics and sales numbers.” I appreciate that in this industry the sales are important to keep going, but the figures seem to drive him and for someone who is clearly raking it in (he’s recently purchased 700 acres of land) this shouldn’t be an issue so much as occasionally finding you’ve gone platinum and thinking ‘aww, I’ve got really good fans, I’m so lucky’. It should be about how good your fans are and how many of them want to buy and listen to and indulge in your music, not how much money you’ve made (once you can sustain yourself) or how many faceless, pointless people are handing it over. To me it just seems wrong.
So, to the bit everyone’s talking about. For a start, Eric seems to think that artists who take part in reality shows are not real artists. HOL’ UP HOL’ UP HOL’ UP. Bit of a generalisation? He also seems to think artists should not take up other projects besides music. It’s like saying, you’ve got a hobby of cycling. You can’t take up driving too, and you certainly can’t play guitar or surf or play video games. Cause that’s not being true to your hobby, everything needs to be about your one hobby. Well people are multi-faceted, and I’m into LOTS of things, which include writing songs, baking, fashion, video games, and a whole host of other things. What I’m trying to say is if an artist has an opportunity to do something different in between albums and touring, why shouldn’t they? If they have an interest in something it shouldn’t be that they’re trying to become this unreal, conglomerate popstar (conglomerate companies are those that own many companies of highly varying products and services that integrate with each other for maximum profit, for example AOL Time Warner). Someone may judge a reality show, or develop their own clothing line, or star in a movie, or create a perfume, but doesn’t make them any less about the music, it just makes them more of a human being.
So what do I think about reality shows? Sometimes they can appear contrived, and that much of the work is not shown and it appears a simple shoot-to-fame process. I realise that’s what Eric is trying to say. However, it says it in the wrong way, and reality shows do so much good in that they can provide a platform for people who have the potential to be really good artists, just need the right beginning. Miranda Lambert started on Nashville Star, yet she’s respected in the industry as far as I know, for being a true, creative artist who puts a lot into her work and career. Many people have worked hard to get somewhere in the industry for years, and just happen to go on a talent show which rockets them to stardom. Then they’re always known as the reality show kid. They’ve always got this label on their head, which isn’t fair. It’s all about right place, right time.
And just because someone has worked for years and done everything the hard way to get to some success, doesn’t mean their music is any better. You can say they’ve lived more, but have they? Going door to door with song after song and playing empty clubs doesn’t necessarily give them live experience that’ll make their music better – it’s more in experiencing death and heartbreak and really difficult situations that gives people life experience, and might make their music better. Might.
Funnily enough, when I judge someone’s music, I’m not judging the way it was created, and what the artist went through to get the place in which they made the music. I’m judging the music itself and what I can get from it. If the former can influence the latter, that’s great, but I’m not judging processes, just end output, cause that’s really what we’re looking for when we’re listening to music, isn’t it?
He also disses rock music in this interview, but I’d argue one day of a rock festival which he played does not give him reason to shoot down all of modern rock music. It seems a little desperate, as if to create some controversy. I mean that’s what he’s done, and supposedly his and Blake’s sales have rocketed surrounding this news story, as people take sides and show their support, and people want to know what this guy’s about, they want to judge his music by his words and actions. And that’s fair enough (although that’s arguably what YouTube is for) but I sincerely hope this is just a passing phenomenon (apart from for Blake of course), because I really don’t think what stinks of marketing ploy should net Eric even more money than the piles of what he already has. I mean why should it, when other controversial comments made in the past have had artists ousted from the genre completely? It doesn’t make sense and it doesn’t seem fair, and shame on you if you let controversies like this sway your buying habits.
A lot of fans have lost respect for Eric, and a lot of non-fans will now never listen to him out of principle. In this way I congratulate people because it shows him he can’t just go around running his mouth and expect people to think it’s amazing and buy more records. I hope it bites him in the ass.
Maybe Eric is bitter, maybe he doesn’t understand, maybe he’s just drunk. Either way, he’s put me off his music, so he can note that my money at least won’t be adding to the amount of 700 acre estates he can buy. Because if you’re not humble after his success, there’s no future for you in country music, my friend.
For The Country Record 