The Re-Integration of “Bro-Country” Hatred by Music Row
Look folks, I don’t want to come across as a know-it-all, but you can see these trends forming in the mainstream country music business miles away and many months before the eventual players in these trends even know what the hell is going on. Since country music has no sustainability, and instead is simply propelled forward (or backward as the case may be) by hyper-trends and fads that explode and flame out just as fast, it continues to make the same mistakes over and over again and has become predictable as a Luke Bryan lyrical turn that resolves in “beer”.
It has come to the point where I hate the term “bro-country” even more than I hate the stupid music it is meant to describe. Christening “bro-country” gave the music legitimacy. It gave it its own subgenre. It gave “bro-country” strength by banding it all together under a term that would appeal to the same numb-skulls it was meant to make fun of, and not to toot my own horn, but as I predicted from the beginning, the term has subsequently been hijacked by those numb skulls and the artists it is meant to criticize to be used for marketing. And now the anger, the fervor against “bro-country” which has itself has been allowed to coalesce into a collective angst thanks to the term, is being used for marketing as well, to re-integrate the angry populous back into the country music industrial complex.
READ: As Predicted, “Bro-Country” Is Now a Term of Endearment
Bro-country is big business. And no, I’m not just talking about the music itself. I’m talking about the amount of people you can get heading in one direction simply by using the term in whatever you’re trying to promote. Whether you’re for or against “bro-country”, someone mentions it and your country music world is immediately polarized, attentive, and ready to pounce. It is like a political wedge issue that in the end both sides of the aisle have no desire to resolve because it whips their respective constituencies into such a fervor, it keeps energy (and thus, dollars) flowing into the system. “Bro-country” is man vs. woman, old vs. new, commercial vs. critically-acclaimed all wrapped up into one big hot button being pushed by country music’s powers that be.

In the vacuum of true choice, Music Row is attempting to appeal to both sides of the “bro-country” issue so they’re insured to not lose anyone’s business. Look no further to how Music Row plans to monetize your “bro-country” hatred than the recently-signed 18-year-old duo Maddie & Tae. The two girls have been taken under the wing of Scott Borchetta’s newly-acquired Dot Records, which falls under his massive Big Machine Label Group empire. Just in the last few days we’ve been allowed to sniff the duo’s first single called “Girl In A Country Song”, and if you want to believe all the hype surrounding it, the song is massive ANTI “bro-country” colossus that Borchetta has personally hand-picked from the crowd to shepherd to radio dominance as a mega hit.
Hey, it’s hard to disagree with the ANTI “bro-country” sentiment of “Girl In A Country Song”. But don’t we think that it’s just a little ironic this is coming from the same label group that gave rise to Florida Georgia Line and Brantley Gilbert, arguably the Godfather and Kings of “Bro-Country”? This is why Scott Borchetta is an evil genius; he gets you coming and going. You love “bro-country”? Then may I direct your attention to aisle 9 of Big Machine Records. You hate it? Then aisle 7 will be more your speed. And how much does the sentiment really resonate in the ANTI “bro-country” songs when you consider the source? Meanwhile the true anti “bro-country” acts are the ones playing to half-empty clubs for door deals, and eating circus peanuts for dinner.
And trust me, Maddie & Tae is just where the ANTI “bro-country” industry re-indoctrination begins. There will be a dozen of these acts before we are done, and even the “bro-country” acts themselves will be releasing ANTI “bro-country” songs. In fact, this is already said to be happening, and guess where? Scott Borchetta’s Big Machine cash cows Florida Georgia Line’s new single “Dirt” to be released on July 8th is already being touted in some sectors as a “non ‘bro-country’ song.”
The simple fact is, so called “bro-country” was already done 9 to 18 months ago, and we’re simply in a period where Music Row is working through its excess “bro-country” song inventory. As with all things, Scott Borchetta is on the cutting edge and ahead of the curve, and soon the rest of Music Row, like a 1985 Buick trying to make a U-turn in the middle of rush hour traffic, will slowly reverse course along with him.
This all fits the same test pattern that Music Row employed amongst the angry backlash that presented itself when Taylor Swift came to country music dominance in 2007. Traditional country fans all proclaimed country music was dead, and so country music’s major labels all cobbled together some “new Outlaws” to present to the format’s pissed off minority: Eric Church singing “Lotta Boot Left To Fill”, Gretchen Wilson’s “Outlaws & Renegades”. Oh and which outfit was Justin Moore signed to when he released the album Outlaws Like Me? Yep, Big Machine Records; the same as Taylor Swift.
But this type of baiting of the country music public doesn’t stop with major labels. The other day I saw the new Rolling Stone Country post an article titled, “Miranda Lambert Gives A Woman’s Take on ‘Bro Country‘.” “Well hey,” I thought. “Miranda Lambert is finally speaking out!” But when I got into the meat of the article, I read Miranda saying “….I’m happy about it and I don’t have any problem with anything that is going on.” Huh. Is this really a woman’s take on “bro-country”, or does Miranda understand the wrong words could mean curtains for her career? Maddie & Tae sure have a different perspective, but of course, Scott Borchetta has their back. The underlying point here is this “bro-country” buzzword gets the country music public clicking away, hoping to find a bowl of blood. And I don’t mean to single out Rolling Stone Country specifically. All over the country music internet you’re seeing this “bro-country” focus, especially with interviewers hoping an interviewee slips up, says the wrong thing, and starts an internet “bro-country” war of words, which is always good for business.
READ: Bro-Country Is Just The Symptom. Here Are The Causes
This type of revolving, merry-go-round system that pilfers both sides of the country music culture divide sure does stir the pot, but it’s not brewing anything healthy. The gullible country music masses and the complicit media allow this revolving door of enjoyment and contempt to continue, but you go to that well long enough, and some people will start to wisen up, and be spit out of the system in such substantial numbers that there won’t be enough current to fuel the water wheel.
I don’t want to hate on “bro-country” fans because I don’t want to hate on anybody. The solution to “bro-country” is not ANTI “bro-country”. The solution to “bro-country” is really good songs that transcend gender, age, and even taste, and unify the country music public, not pit it against itself.
July 1, 2014 @ 6:48 pm
This is an excellent article, Trigger. I’ve been pondering “Girl in a Country Song” the last few days and while my initial reactions to it have been positive, maybe that’s not the right way to react. As you said, Scott Borchetta is wisely playing both sides of the aisle. He may be an evil scumbag, but you can never call him an idiot. And you said the best way to combat bro country is with great music and Borchetta has that covered too with The Mavericks.
One other thing is I do place part of the blame on bro country fans. You have to. Sturgill Simpson said it best when he said the power is in the fans’ hands when determining what country music gets played. If people are too lazy to go looking for good country music and just accept what’s on the radio, they’re part of why we don’t hear better country music on the radio. There is no excuse for ignorance when it comes to music today because you can find anything with one simple Google search. That’s how I found SCM after all.
July 1, 2014 @ 11:32 pm
I appreciate the kudos Josh.
The thing is, I’d rather blame myself before I blame the “fans” of the music. Call me naive, but I just think that if given the right information and alternatives, music consumers would make better choices, and it is up to people like me every day to figure out how to reach these people and in greater numbers. No offense to you or Sturgill, I just think the problems go much deeper than the listeners. I feel like that is one step removed from throwing your hands up and saying, “Welp, there’s nothing we can do.” I think this thing has to be fought on all fronts. From the labels, to the individual fans.
July 6, 2014 @ 2:16 pm
I agree with you in part but that i s only because there is no music history education in schools so most young people don’t even know about what came before outside what little they are willing to listen to handed down by their parents. So education would help.
I also agree with Trigger that you have to promote and play and talk about these acts and issues ad nauseum you get everyone but you may get one person and that is where it all begins. I find most people when you start to suggest alternative take it as an insult or like you are saying they have bad taste and can’t like what they like. Even the most nonconfrontational reccomendations I make about music still get some people angry and the send me some all caps rant or the like. It is a very tough spot when everyone sees themselves as right and everyone else as wrong.
July 1, 2014 @ 6:50 pm
See, this is why the whole ‘bro-country’ thing pissed me off – mostly because not everything branded bro-country sucks. I’ve liked more than my fair share of songs from Jake Owen and Billy Currington, I actually quite liked Chris Young’s stab at the trend, and I can’t really hate Florida Georgia Line on account of the duo being too stupid to really bother me.
So while the anti-bro-country thing intrigues me – if only because it means we’re going to get more women back on mainstream radio – it is marketing, pure and simple, and just because an act isn’t bro-country doesn’t mean the album doesn’t have huge problems with it. I might have a fondness for neotraditional country over the bro-country subgenre, but there are duds on both sides of the aisle, and passing a ruling on quality based on subgenre alone is negligent.
Hell, that’s the reason I am going to cover Colt Fold’s album later this month. I can’t keep saying country rap is shit if I don’t get a firm handle on one of the more established acts in the genre.
July 2, 2014 @ 12:33 pm
I might have a fondness for neotraditional country over the bro-country subgenre, but there are duds on both sides of the aisle, and passing a ruling on quality based on subgenre alone is negligent.
But the thing about it is, at least if I”™m interpreting it all correctly, that bro-country is pretty specifically and narrowly defined ”” and that definition is largely negative. (Noah, I would guess your definition of b-c as “songs depicting parties out in the field, etc. is pretty much spot-on.) I don”™t know how much outside the norm you can get without breaking free of that negative definition, at least lyrically speaking. (Sonically, it”™s a whole different ballgame. Just ask Kevin Fowler”™s myriad detractors. :D) And maybe some of those songs about partying, girls, and whatnot do have merit, but there are just so many of them and the flaws of most of them are legion ”” misogynistic, one-dimensional, pretty much the same song, “sung” by people who can barely sing, you name it.
And you are 100 percent correct when you say that “just because an act isn”™t bro-country doesn”™t mean the album doesn”™t have huge problems with it.” I”™ve pointed it out myself here before and so have others, in relation to, among other singers, the aforementioned Church, Miranda Lambert, and Carrie Underwood. The whole “anything/anyone but (fill-in-the-blank)” mentality has indeed left a lot of good on the trash pile. One of my pet examples of this is heavy metal. I mean, sure, grunge may have killed hair/glam metal, but the flip side of that is that a lot of legitimate metal bands were left out in the cold until metal started to come back around.
So yeah, we”™re going to have to be careful. But that doesn”™t change my personal opinion that this whole “bro-country” thing has got to go, and the sooner the better.
July 1, 2014 @ 8:21 pm
Another point I feel like I should add is that I feel “bro-country” hasn’t been adequately defined as a product anyway.
I’ve hear some define it as songs that depict parties either out in a field or by the riverside; sung by males which usually feature most, if not all, of the following: ice cold beer, daisy dukes, cut-off jeans, radios, tans, tailgates, jacked-up trucks, dirt roads, moonlight, ball caps, moonshine and bikini tops………..usually following the exact same narrative template but with the words very slightly re-arranged and written more as a string of non-sequiturs as opposed to a narrative………….with the women depicted submissively as objects of sexual fulfillment but never being allowed a distinctive point of view or personality…………backed by a blend of meat-and-potatoes 80’s arena rock, 90’s hip-hop beats and, most recently, watered-down EDM production set to drum loops, generous amounts of Auto-Tune and a vocal style that owes more to speak-singing or “talking” than full-singing: often with a twangy inflection.
That’s how I’d approximate “bro-country”.
Then again, I’ve read and heard all these other variations of what “bro-country” is. Some more specifically just define them as party songs in the backwoods without assessing the musical influence. Someone defined it as “traditional country music’s rebellious younger brother” (whatever the heck that’s supposed to mean). A few others have even argued “bro-country” has actually already been a fad longer than we think in dating as far back as Kenny Chesney and Toby Keith’s rise to fame.
The fact of the matter is, I wonder if “bro-country” has even been adequately defined to date. At what point did chicken-fried party songs essentially pre-date the coining of this term? I haven’t seen a straight answer yet. And that ties right back to your point about how sinister a marketing ploy this has truly been.
July 1, 2014 @ 9:13 pm
I’m glad you put this out before I had the chance to comment (because I’ve seriously been thinking about it for over 2 hours). It gives me a jumping off point from what I want to convey.
A lot of comparisons have been made with “Bro Country” and Hair/Pop/Glam Metal. In my opinion, neither has been all encompassing nor accurate.
In the mid to late 80s everything guitar-driven with a sense of melody was deemed to be Hair/Pop/Glam Metal. Scorpions? Check. Motley? Check. Whitesnake? Check. KISS? Check. AC/DC? Believe it or not, check.
I don’t know everything that falls under the Bro-Country umbrella, but if it’s anywhere near as big as the Hair Metal umbrella, then a lot of babies are going to be thrown out with the bathwater.
The artists I mentioned above benefited from the umbrella, but did not melt away when the umbrella folded. There are some that rode the wave of popularity of the genre that got washed away in the backlash that didn’t deserve it.
There have been artist mentioned in previous comments that are sustainable beyond this recent fad. Be careful. I’ve seen a lot of good artists shut out just because they became popular at the wrong time.
July 1, 2014 @ 11:08 pm
That’s a very good point about hair metal. I was talking with a hipster once and when I pressed him for opinions on bands like Guns ‘N Roses, AC/DC, Journey, etc. he simply stated that hated “hair metal.” How quaint. Never mind the fact that the first band listed there actually helped to kill the trend, the second has never adhered to any outside influence in terms of image and hasn’t changed since day one and the third band is simply pop rock. Heck, I’m sure if Nirvana had started in the mid-80s as opposed to late he would have branded them with the same term. To be honest, it was more amusing that irritating. This guy acted like he’d been around the block and seen all there was to see but he wasn’t even in the ballpark of knowing what the hell he was talking about. The same went for his opinions of country music. But of course, being a hipster, he noted his “respect” for Johnny Cash and other such artists that have “earned” it, even if they are part of a genre that is “objectively bad” with musical/lyrical ideals that “anyone” can pull off without a slight bit of effort. I can’t remember how it came up, but we also got to talking about Nickelback, and he tried to make himself seem like the progenitor of the term “butt rock,” yet another umbrella term with little in the way of concrete parameters. Generally this sub-genre is defined as “bands in which the lead singer assumes a low, raspy baritone to hid the lack of actual vocal skill” along with “repetitive and simplistic guitar riffs” or something like that. Okay, then. Guess AC/DC is butt rock as well. Alice in Chains, check. Pearl Jam, check. Creed, check. Black Sabbath (the Dio era, anyway), check. Melvins, check. Metallica, check. Quiet Riot, check. Stone Temple Pilots, check. Soundgarden, check. I’m obviously taking some liberties in referring to certain songs rather than whole discographies, but the list goes on and on. Interestingly enough, Brantley Gilbert would be a great example of music along the lines of this definition, but he’s officially designated as bro country. I’d hate to apply myself to the headache of these two terms overlapping.
You’re right about artists being defined more by their era than sound, though. Everyone loves to slap labels on songs and pick sides, when it really just does them a disservice. The individual that I reference above, for instance, might avoid all classic rock simply because he thinks classic rock automatically equals hair metal, thus stripping himself of the opportunity to hear some great music. It kind of reminds me of how folk/progressive bands like Deep Purple, Led Zeppelin, Styx, Kansas and the like were all apparently lumped in with the heavy metal crowd in the 70s. Then, in the 80s, bands like the aforementioned Journey, Quiet Riot, Def Leppard and other such pop rock outfits were labeled as hair metal, even though their image and most of the music was quite different. The 90s is where it gets really messy. Given that most grunge fans and even the musicians themselves are a snooty, pretentious bunch, only a select class of acts were considered to be a part of the genre. Even as early as 1992, despite the movement largely gaining mainstream momentum just a year earlier, bands like Stone Temple Pilots, Bush, Candlebox, Collective Soul and Puddle of Mudd were branded as “post-grunge.” For whatever reason the rock genre doesn’t seem to have moved on past this monicker; I honestly believe that if I were to go out and start a band that had a bit of attitude and angst with some noise we would be termed as post-grunge. Heck, if Motley Crue had started in the 90s they would have been considered post-grunge just because of the time-table.
One wonders when this particular trend might wear off. Say what you will about the instability of the country music landscape, but it could be worse. We could be stuck in some niche that is considered an offshoot of a sub-genre that essentially neutered rock and roll. Sure, grunge had some good music, but the pretentiousness of the movement as well as its impenetrable demeanor (hence all of the “post” nonsense) caused it to essentially derail the system. Yes, that was largely the point, but it’s also the reason why we’ve gone from songs that were jovial and happy to ones where the defacto mode is “I’m depressed, I hate my life.” The amount of casualties on the inside have sealed the fate of the genre, never letting it escape the public eye (Kurt Cobain, Layne Staley, etc.) And the fact that any band that has become big and famous in the wake of these “legends” are almost automatically termed as fraudulent, insincere or simply in it for the money (Creed, Nickelback, etc.) even if their music is ostensibly different from their forbears (yes, these two are a bit derivative but nowhere near as much as critics would like the public to believe). The great irony here, of course, is simply that grunge is famous for killing hair metal but everyone wants to believe that it “invented” something when in reality it was just simplistic garage rock for the most part. Of the type that one out of every three local bands can be found playing. A few just got really big, shook up the business and were suddenly crowned as “innovators” that would be used to judge and inevitably criticize anyone that followed.
Whew. Got a little off topic there, but I hope you got my point. It could easily be worse. These bro country guys could be seen as the first of an angelic generation of music that never goes away and clouds the judgement of the fans that embrace it. Good thing it isn’t.
July 2, 2014 @ 11:34 pm
You bring up some cogent points, with definite liberties taken as well, but those are outside of my concerns. I guess I have a couple questions (which are the same single question).
1) what is the point of defining genres?
2) If the goal is to deliniate boundaries separating genres or groups, you can only do so reliably based on universality and specificity. Every entity within a specified genre must possess an overarching characteristic shared by only those within a given group to make a distinct group. And everybody within that group must have, at least, that same defining feature(s). So again, what does “genre specification” do to inform decisions about particular bands or styles?
July 3, 2014 @ 5:22 pm
I know this was directed at AccaDacca, but if you don’t mind, I’d like to jump in. I probably cannot express it as eloquently as Acca, but I’ll do my best.
I don’t think artists for the most part care to define genres. Because they don’t want to be pigeonholed. Genres are for fans and critics. It helps to define what type of artist we like and those that we might like based on similarities.
It’s just the way we think. If you like Luke Bryan, you might like Jason Aldean. The similarities are obvious. The devil is in the differences and nuances (OK, so Bryan and Aldean are bad examples to bring up nuance, but I think you get the point).
But most people are not that simple, whether they know it or not. I like Sturgill Simpson. I also like Iron Maiden. I’m not making the leap that the next fan of Simpson I meet is also going to be into Maiden. “Hey, you like the latest Sturgill Simpson record? What’s your favorite Iron Maiden track?”
Genres serve the purpose to bond fans that have similar interests. There are sites like this for a reason. There are also sites dedicated to glam, punk, bro-country, rap, psych-billy, ska, prog rock, bluegrass, industrial, etc., etc., etc. They are places where fans of a particular style of music (genre) can engage with other fans.
July 6, 2014 @ 2:32 pm
For me genere labels are helpful in the nuts and bolts scholarly dialogue of it whether in calss or between friends but on a mass societal scale it just gets annoying as hell. Bix Biderebke, Charlie Parker, and Dave Sandborn are all jazz and yet I know people who will listen to one and not the others or listen to all three with ease. But ALL of them would say I LOVE jazz. Same for Rock music fans Nirvana is rock but are The Eagles and so Cream and Heart and if you want to be REALLY broad Joni Mitchell and Laura Nyro are also rock.
So certainly the same would hold true for country music. I have a friend who said she hates country music and then I said what about Pasty Cline, Hank Williams, Ernest Tubb, Rose Madoxx, Johnny Cash… Well, guess who does actually like country music. LOL! She jst didn’t consider that stuff country but music or pop music.
I also remember reading a series of articles at Metal-Rules about why Glam Metal is heavy metal. It was a great series that kindly pointed out that just because current mostly young “meatlheads” said it isn’t “heavy” enough to be heavy metal does not mean it isn’t metal.
Of course labels are also how people define themselves and find like minded groups so being a metalhead who was insistent that glam metal was not metal would never want to pal around with anyone who definition of the metal genre was that broad. It would be heresy or worse admitting you might be wrong!
July 1, 2014 @ 8:36 pm
‘One other thing is I do place part of the blame on bro country fans. You have to. Sturgill Simpson said it best when he said the power is in the fans”™ hands when determining what country music gets played. If people are too lazy to go looking for good country music and just accept what”™s on the radio, they”™re part of why we don”™t hear better country music on the radio. There is no excuse for ignorance when it comes to music today because you can find anything with one simple Google search. That”™s how I found SCM after all. ‘
Sturgill absolutely has it right !
I wouldn’t blame a tire store for selling neon yellow tires, as ugly as they would be ,if people kept buying them . The tire store is in business to make money and make payroll . It isn’t their job to tell you WHAT color tires to buy …its their job to SELL you any color tire you WANT and are WILLING to pay for .
Record companies are in business to sell ‘neon yellow tires’ to make money ,make payroll and keep their jobs so if that’s what people want , why wouldn’t they sell them that ? There are more horror stories about labels and their lack of vision and their ineptitude when it comes to marketing artists than there are the other . They don’t know what is going to work….but when something DOES work , you can bet they’ll try to duplicate it as often as they can to capitalize on the public appetite for it while it lasts. Radio doesn’t know or care about the songs they play as long as they have listeners willing to stay tuned . If Gregorian Chants became huge they’d be all over the radio and BIG MACHINE would be more than happy to open aisle 14 to that genre and sell you a truckload for your next Gregorian Chant tailgate party .
The best we can hope for is that people become educated through sites like this one , honest articles by knowledgeable critics , serious music fans , word of mouth and GOOD artists and bands plying their wares in every nook and cranny they can . Cuz once the neon yellow tire fad fades , the purple neon tire fad will begin whether we like it or not .
July 1, 2014 @ 11:15 pm
On the topic of Justin Moore, Trigger, when might we be getting a review of his cover of “Home Sweet Home”? The single dropped today and surprisingly, it didn’t personally offend my ears. Parts of it were cringe-worthy but for the most part it could have been much worse. Surprisingly Moore pulls off those high notes with relative ease and conviction; notable since it must be two or three octaves above his normal range. Vince Neil also drops in to sing backup vocals on the chorus, which is a nice touch. Of course, I’m also a Motley fan and not as hard on pop country or Justin Moore as the average SCM reader, so I don’t expect these observations to represent the general consensus in any way.
July 1, 2014 @ 11:33 pm
I’m sure I’ll have something to say about it eventually. ;).
July 2, 2014 @ 9:07 am
I heard that also and I didn’t think it was too bad. I went through all the previews for the songs on the album and of course The Mavericks did Motley Crue the most justice with their cover of “Dr. Feelgood.” If it’s possible I’ll probably at least get that when it’s available.
July 3, 2014 @ 3:30 pm
How did Big & Rich sound on their rendition of “S.O.S.”? I was honestly surprised to see them there. They aren’t a part of Big Machine’s roster nor associated in any way with the other acts there, save for Gretchen Wilson.
July 3, 2014 @ 11:04 am
Justin Moore pulls off those notes because he CAN sing those notes. I’ve seen him perform stuff not on his recordings live before. He’s been seriously limited as a vocalist by his label and producer up until now. Hopefully this song will change that (even if it’s a cover of an iconic “hair metal” song).
July 3, 2014 @ 3:44 pm
I think hair metal gets a bad rap because of how over-the-top it got towards the end, it’s obvious sexism and the fact that being about thirty years removed from it, it’s nothing less than dated cheese for the most part. Ironically, it has an arguably more prevalent fanbase in the modern world than the genre that killed it (grunge). Despite not having a gold album since the mid-90s and a platinum album in even longer, Motley Crue can still sell out stadiums. Poison isn’t doing bad, either. Bon Jovi, though they never dressed up, were still a big part of the movement and they’re done nothing but big business since Slippery When Wet was released. Def Leppard, Guns N’ Roses and Van Halen, though all debatable in their inclusion in the monicker of hair metal (GNR is readily cited as a band that helped kill it), they are nonetheless all doing well. As for grunge, Alice In Chains and Pearl Jam are the only ones that still have anything resembling a large fanbase, and the former only within grunge. Pearl Jam is quite possibly the last grunge band with anything resembling mainstream popularity.
Regardless of all of this genre nonsense, it’s my opinion that every type of music has moments that transcend their stigmas. “Home Sweet Home” is one of those songs. Call it shallow, simplistic or whatever you want, but it’s my opinion that the original version of that song is simply art and that’s all there is to it. It’s easy to look back and criticize if you forget that “Home Sweet Home” was really one of the first power ballads of this subgenre that spawned countless imitators, not the other way around. My film teacher put it to me this way: every art form and genre within that art form can have examples of exceptional creativity within the facets of what it is setting out to achieve. For instance, Die Hard, Lethal Weapon and even The Expendables or Transformers are all “art” in that they do what they set out to do and do it well. Other such forms that are considered objectively bad by the art prudes of the world also apply. This doesn’t mean they’re perfect by any means, it just means that they’re qualitative by the terms they were made and sometimes exceptional. Every art form has it’s weaknesses and some stand up to scrutiny more than others. When it comes to hair metal, the Crue made some good music and made no bones about their intentions. It doesn’t mean it isn’t sexist, dunderheaded or downright stupid at certain times, but I certainly wouldn’t call the majority of it bad for no other reason than the reputation of “hair metal.”
July 3, 2014 @ 4:57 pm
Well, Nirvana would still be selling out and probably still making records if Kurt Cobain were still around.
July 3, 2014 @ 7:56 pm
While that’s certainly likely, I wouldn’t count it as a sure thing. Fans seem to forget that Cobain didn’t always have that “god among men” back in the day that he’s achieved in the 20 years since his suicide. From what I’ve read he received a decent amount of criticism for his random lyrics and simplistic musical arrangements. It’s also easy to forget that the band only cut three studio albums: Bleach, Nevermind and In Utero. Incesticide was a compilation and Unplugged in New York was a live album. Everything else released since then has been a cash-in attempt. This band never had a chance to cut a bad album or fall into bad graces with their fans; they were active on the major music scene for all of five years and three if you start with the explosion in 1991. Plus, as we all know Cobain is dead and history never looks back on a dead celebrity with anything but praise, barring that they weren’t a complete jerk (Cobain being the exception because he was “cool” while doing it). The same goes for the likes of Led Zeppelin and the Beatles. Not discounting their accomplishments, sales or popularity, but it’s far different for a band to go for a decade or less, fizzle out and then several years later say “well, they’d be just as popular now.” Name me five bands that started in the 70s that are still selling out arenas? Obviously there are some, but the ones like the Stones and Journey are fairly inactive and anemic when it comes to album sales. They’re making a living as legacy acts. AC/DC is one of the only bands from their era that can consistently sell out stadiums and release new albums that go Platinum, but even their appeal is partly based on the fact that they are only active for a few years out of every decade nowadays; they aren’t a constant presence. Part of the popularity of bands like Nirvana, Zeppelin and the Beatles is the fact that they aren’t around anymore; when one is denied something it makes you want it even more, hence the popularity. All three of these bands’ commercial releases were declining in sales numbers by the time that they petered out. Nowadays second and third generation fans that never got to experience them clamor for that chance, thus increasing the rabid fan base. Again, one assumes that it wouldn’t be quite the same if all of these bands were still together and certain members were still alive. That’s my own personal theory anyway. Nostalgia is a powerful emotion, particularly when you’re denied it by your age.
July 2, 2014 @ 1:00 am
The problem I have with “bro country” (sick of that term too, but I don’t know what else to call it) isn’t the material itself as much as the utter lack of creativity involved. Every song uses the same handful of phrases. A few songs about trucks and beer and girls are fine, but when they’re over half the songs in the top 10 and they’re nearly indistinguishable, that’s a problem.
I agree with everything in the Maddie & Tae song, I like it, but please, ONE is enough! The last thing I want is a glut of anti-bro songs in the wake of all the bro songs. But if it sells you know it won’t stop there. :/ That’s what happens when marketing trumps creativity, I guess. It’s sad. I’d rather listen to Lucy Hale’s album. Just a girl singing songs with heart and class, and no agenda.
I just want Alan Jackson back, and George Strait, and real class in country music. That’s the best backlash against rampant bro-ism we could get, not 50 “protest” songs and each one less creative than the last. At least, this kind of seems like a crossroads so I’m interested to see where things go from here.
July 2, 2014 @ 9:55 am
Well put. Though “Girl in a Country Song” was pretty clever when I heard it — especially because I was able to pick up on some of the references to other songs and identify with the sentiment against them — I could totally understand other folks completely missing the humor by virtue of (fortunately) being unfamiliar with the object of the satire. And frankly, I also got the feeling that the lyrics probably didn’t need a whole lot of thought put into them (simply taking something that already exists and twisting it around a little to make a point about how stupid it is).
For a real backlash against douchebilly (I too have grown sick of the term “bro-country”), I’d rather country radio fans were introduced to material that provides more positive examples — more respect for women, more of a variety of human experiences, and so on.
July 2, 2014 @ 1:31 am
I had never heard of bro-“country” until I found this website. “Country” radio has been hard to listen to for nearly 20 years and this bro stuff is just the latest version of pop-“country”; the latest twist on music recorded in Nashville that isn’t Country. Checklist songs, and rural cliche songs aren’t all that recent of a trend either. I’ve been bitching about this stuff years before this website existed. I used to think I was the only person who noticed it. It was nice to discover I wasn’t.
And yes, it is the fans’ fault. I’m not even sure how that’s arguable.
July 2, 2014 @ 2:25 am
Checklist songs without any narrative have never dominated country radio until about 2 years ago or less. Furthermore, even checklist-heavy songs often featured good music rooted solidly in country tradition, such as this one by Jason Aldean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjwAucpiC6Q&feature=kp
July 2, 2014 @ 2:39 am
Did you just start listening to “country” radio 2 years ago?
July 2, 2014 @ 3:07 am
I started listening to country radio about four and a half years ago, back in late 2009/early 2010. As I have mentioned before on SCM, pop-country back then meant Lady Antebellum’s “Need You Now”. The bro-country style was marginal at most.
July 2, 2014 @ 3:27 am
Well that would explain a lot. We are coming from completely different perspectives. For me, the stuff on the radio has been mostly horrible for two decades. The music has taken on different variations, but hardly any of it has been what I had known to be Country. I thought “Need You Now” was every bit as bad as “Cruise”. I loathe Lady Antebellum equally as much as I loathe Florida Georgia Line. You know, a lot of George Strait’s music started to be too pop for me over the last 10 years or so. I quit buying his albums in 2003.
July 2, 2014 @ 2:45 am
Out of curiosity, I clicked the link. I hope you’re just kidding Eric. Aldean’s probably never even been on on a tractor.
July 2, 2014 @ 3:05 am
As I hinted, I am not fond of the lyrics. The music, however, is far better and more truly country than the sound one gets in bro-country (even when the song was released, back in 2009, it was sonically one of the better songs in mainstream country).
July 2, 2014 @ 3:11 am
When you say the music is “far better”, I guess I just simply don’t hear what you’re hearing. It’s the same generic cut beat, the same rock guitars. If there are slight differences, that doesn’t make it “far better”, it’s just the same shit with a little different smell.
July 2, 2014 @ 3:25 am
Compare “Big Green Tractor” with this bro-country song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmaCodtqmNk
It”™s not even close. Whereas “Big Green Tractor” features steel guitar and a soothing, emotion-inducing soft rock guitar melody, this song almost completely lacks any melody and features only rap beats and monotonous hard rock guitars.
July 2, 2014 @ 3:37 am
I have a better idea Eric. Why don’t you compare “Big Green Tractor” to this:
http://youtu.be/L5NqLTQ-NAo
Or this:
http://youtu.be/zRjIWnrwCLA
Or this:
http://youtu.be/dSu359nW8MQ
July 2, 2014 @ 3:47 am
And if you wanna get really radical, compare it to this:
http://youtu.be/HERdDWCN87A
July 2, 2014 @ 9:31 am
This adds nothing, but I couldn’t not mention this when big green / tractor songs are mentioned….
Seasick Steve – Big Green & Yeller
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flT52uA5Hug
(best quick link I could find)
July 3, 2014 @ 11:07 am
“Checklist” songs have been around since the beginning of time.
July 2, 2014 @ 5:19 am
.Sturgill has it right in my opinion most people will not take the time to search out their music.They only listen to what’s put directly in front of them over and over and over.Example I like any other musician post my songs in lots of places for free just to simply try to get the songs out there.It is hard to get anyone to click on it simply because they do not recognize the title or artist.Here is my latest I have been posting and have only gotten 30 or 40 views..
http://youtu.be/JXTuLBCTk88
July 2, 2014 @ 9:04 am
27 views.
It is a well-done demo, but it would need reworked IMHO. The title/theme is misleading–people see the blues, they expect to hear the blues. I hear traditional country.
There are some good lyrics in there–perhaps they could be recycled into something with a coherent theme/title. Either find a way to reference the blues musically (and that can be real subtle), or remove/tone down the blues reference. Even calling it Colorado Blue might be enough, like a farmer “Covered in the red clay of Georgia, feeling Colorado Blue” (c). Try to find a way to weave some (subtle) color references throughout. Colorado means red in Spanish–you can juxtapose the blue. Try to use some synonyms/antonyms for red and blue. etc, etc.
The arrangement isn’t terrible. It needs a different ending. I would like to hear a version with a bridge, but it doesn’t necessarily need it.
Songs get produced like painters apply color to canvas. Know what to put in, what to leave out, how to mix the colors, and most importantly when to stop painting! (And we don’t make mistakes, we have Happy Accidents!!)
To be sure, it was a nice ear cleansing after clicking Eric’s link above–BIG mistake, that!
July 2, 2014 @ 8:23 pm
The Jason Aldean link or the Luke Bryan one? 🙂
July 2, 2014 @ 7:20 am
Fantastic commentary and writing in this article Trigger. My favorite part, which is something we should all really think about, is this:
“I don”™t want to hate on “bro-country” fans because I don”™t want to hate on anybody. The solution to “bro-country” is not ANTI “bro-country”. The solution to “bro-country” is really good songs that transcend gender, age, and even taste, and unify the country music public, not pit it against itself.”
Old Scotty B is just doing what ruthless businessmen have done since the beginning of time by offering two products that contradict each other. If he doesn’t get you on the way in, he gets you on the way out.
July 2, 2014 @ 9:13 am
Exactly — Big Machine releasing a track like “Girl in a Country Song” may seem gutsy on the surface, but it’s really the ultimate play-it-safe move. “You don’t like what the boys have been putting out? Hang on, I got just the thing for you!”
Problem is, as amusing as it may be for the moment, a song that’s an immediate reaction against something — particularly some silly, annoying trend — is not going to have much shelf life. (It might have even less staying power than the original trend, if fans of that trend are numerous enough and become defensive enough to drown out the backlash.)
July 2, 2014 @ 10:55 am
A few observations”¦
I can totally see Scott Borchetta playing both sides of the bro-“country” divide, and though I know it”™d be immensely profitable for him to do so, I still find the whole thing breathlessly cynical, as though the only thing he believes in is what will make him more money. I can”™t altogether fault him for that, but I do find it to be incredibly distasteful all the same.
I can say the same for the whole “new Outlaws” bullshit, especially in regards to Eric Church. It”™s really a shame so many people have fallen for that sort of thing, since it”™s nothing more than a cynical marketing shtick, perhaps the most cynical shtick Music Row has come up with yet.
And I”™m just going off what we”™ve seen before, but I”™m just not so sure we”™re going to see the airwaves flooded with these types of songs. I realize we”™re dealing with different trends now than we were in 2000, but even then all we got was “Murder On Music Row,” and even it only made the lower reaches of the Billboard Top 40 even if it did win CMA Vocal Event of the Year. And I would certainly hope the members of the mainstream country audience ”” at least the part of it that songs like “Girl In A Country Song” are aimed at ”” were smart enough to know when they were being played, as would be the case if these protest songs started becoming de rigueur.
July 2, 2014 @ 12:07 pm
First, I predict “Girl In A Country” song will be the one of the biggest, if not the biggest song of the 2014/2015 season simply because Scott Borchetta will make it that way, regardless how it is received my listeners, and it will also make Maddie & Tae international superstars.
This is something that probably deserves its own subject line, but I think that “bro-country” is a direct reaction to Taylor Swift’s late outghts dominance. At that time, the negative sentiment about country music was that it wasn’t country anymore. It was about boyfriends and sippy cups. So here comes Nashville releasing songs screaming about everything “country” like beer, pickup trucks, backroads, moonshine, etc. Everything swung in the opposite direction. Mainstream country isn’t setting trends, it’s reacting to sentiments and is always one step behind. I don’t think ANTI bro-country will be as big of a trend as bro-country is, but I do expect to see some hits with it, especially if “Girl In A Country Song” becomes one, because everyone else on Music Row will copycat it.
July 2, 2014 @ 12:41 pm
If bro-country was a response to mainstream country not being country enough, then why make the music even less country by introducing rap and all types of hard rock?
July 2, 2014 @ 1:07 pm
Because it’s popular. The point was about the lyricism. Compare Taylor Swift’s “You Belong With Me” with “Dirt Road Anthem”, and on paper, one is much more “country” than the other based on obvious stereotypes.
July 2, 2014 @ 2:24 pm
I think this has less to do with what is country enough or not than about masculinity vs femininity. During the oughts, many listeners were upset with the perceived femininity of country radio, and hyper-masculine bro-country started as a reaction to that.
July 2, 2014 @ 1:41 pm
“I don”™t think ANTI bro-country will be as big of a trend as bro-country is, but I do expect to see some hits with it, especially if “Girl In A Country Song” becomes one, because everyone else on Music Row will copycat it.”
This exactly is what concerns me. Following the bro-country song guide, if one is good, 50 must be better! No. Sometimes one statement is enough. I’d like to see Girl in a Country song be a hit, and then get back to some actual country music on the radio. I fear though, if it is a hit, instead of trying to make more heartfelt music everyone will milk the “anti-bro” cash cow til it’s all dried up, and lose sight of what it’s about in the first place. This one song is fine and it makes a good point, but making any more of them would completely miss the point. What we need back in country music more than anything is CREATIVITY and ORIGINALITY (and by originality, I don’t mean banjos set to an EDM beat).
It’s like network TV and the glut of reality shows. If they make cheap, lazy entertainment and the public buys into it, of course they’ll keep making cheap, lazy entertainment. Eventually it’s the public that has to say ‘enough’ and stop watching/listening to the same old crap. Creativity hasn’t gone away, it’s just been shelved in favor of what’s easy.
July 2, 2014 @ 2:12 pm
I think that “bro-country” is a direct reaction to Taylor Swift”™s late outghts dominance. At that time, the negative sentiment about country music was that it wasn”™t country anymore. It was about boyfriends and sippy cups.
SNORT. That reminds me of a quote from Cody Canada, I think it was sometime in 2005 or 2006:
“Nobody wants to hear about you being drunk and losing everything. They want to know how snappy you dance”¦Some of that music ”” the majority of it, I guess ”” just doesn”™t have traction. I”™m about to have a kid, but if I write a song about sippy cups and being Mr. Mom, shoot me.”
You may be right about the song being a big hit. We”™ll see. I would honestly be surprised if you weren”™t. The only thing I question here is the prediction of the proliferation of protest songs. What”™s so different now as opposed to 2000? I still remember everything leading up to “Murder On Music Row” ”” Shania Twain and Faith Hill going increasingly pop, Lonestar ditching John Rich and going in the same direction as Shania and Faith, Alabama covering the N-Sync song and appearing with the band on the CMAs while George Jones got the shaft, Tim McGraw”™s increasing banality (though at the time he did cover a Deryl Dodd tune), all of that. I think this song is arguably even more incendiary than MOMR, considering that it actually makes direct references to specific songs, and that being the case I think it would just be silly for folks to try to do more songs along those lines.
But then, for all anyone knows, this all may just be part of Scott Borchetta trying to protect his golden egg-laying goose, in which case a bunch of copycat protest songs diluting the message makes all the sense in the world.
July 2, 2014 @ 3:33 pm
It seems like these days, more than ever, if something makes money and is simple to do, it will be beaten into the ground til it no longer makes money. If anti-bro sentiment proves to be profitable, I could see a whole wave of young girls with “I’m not your daisy duke” girl-power songs and even guys doing pandering “Hey, I’m not a bro” material. And it’s all just a reaction to something that was hardly worth talking about in the first place instead of, you know, just making country music.
It might not go that way at all but I’m left wondering, will we ever hear songs like “Neon Moon” or “The Dance” or “Someday” or “When You Say Nothing at All” in heavy rotation again? Cause that’s what I miss. I miss it in my soul.
July 2, 2014 @ 2:51 pm
I’m no expert on the radio industry, but obviously Clear Channel and Cumulus exercise strict control over their playlists, and I’m pretty sure individual singles are market-tested before they’re released to try and predict how they’ll perform with various demographic groups. And radio-savvy people like Windmills Country claim that the big two radio companies are specifically targeting a young male audience right now (as opposed to the middle-aged females of the 00’s,) which of course makes perfect sense, and probably accounts for why solo females aren’t currently getting radio play. I even remember reading a radio industry report stating that female solo songs just weren’t “testing well” with the “bro” audience. (Can’t remember where I read that.) So, in order for “Girl In a Country Song” to be a big hit, Maddie & Tae will have to overcome not only the artificial glass ceiling imposed on female acts in country radio, but will have to succeed with a song that specifically mocks hit songs that the bro-country audience really like, which may well piss them off. That seems like a formidable task.
Then again, maybe it’s possible that Scott Borchetta can do whatever he wants, and making this song a hit is as simple as him calling his business partners over at Cumulus and saying, “Hey guys, play this song to number one. Thanks.” And all I can say is if that’s the case, holy crap, that guy is WAY too powerful.
July 2, 2014 @ 3:00 pm
If you watch the EPK for Maddie & Tae and “Girl In A Country Song”, Scott Borchetta specifically talks about the market testing for the song and says that boys “laugh”. The reason that boys and young men are what drive country at the moment is because that’s all the music appeals to specifically. But girls historically are the only ones that still purchase music, as well as most of the concert tickets, stimulated by their crushes on Luke Bryan, etc.
Clear Channel & Cumulus, both of which have signed historic deals with Big Machine in the last 18 months, can be bought. I’m not saying there’s not a chance it could end up just being a mild radio hit, but Borchetta is going to be doing everything he can to launch the female version of Florida Georgia Line.
Here’s the EPK by the way. I haven’t embedded it out of respect because it is still officially listed as “private”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JGuVxmm9K9c&feature=youtu.be
July 2, 2014 @ 4:20 pm
Gawd that corporate-speak, I just can’t. He “activated” them? What does that even mean? Are they a bomb? Okay, whatever. If the revolution has been co-opted by Scott Borchetta, it’s not a revolution anymore.
Borchetta might be the actual devil, but I’ll reserve judgment on Maddie & Tae since they’re such an unknown entity. Their sound is nice and they could be good role models. Maybe they’ll end up being more Dixie Chicks than Florida Georgia Line. At least he didn’t call them Oklahoma Texas Line. ha!
While this is obviously a marketing ploy by Borchetta (“Taylor’s gone, bring in the replacements!”), it’s not all bad either. At least it gets people talking about women’s roles in country music. I’d love to see this help create traction for Lucy Hale’s album and Sunny Sweeney’s upcoming album, as well as artists like Ashley Monroe and Kellie Pickler, but we’ll see. Borchetta is absolutely right about the “gaping hole” of women in country music, and even if he’s focusing on how to profit off it, whatever gets more women back in the game might be good in the long run.
July 2, 2014 @ 4:22 pm
Huh. Well, I figured that bro-country types would be pissed off by the song, but I guess it’s too non-threatening for that somehow. Too bad. People actually deserve to feel a little guilty for embracing the imbecilic, chauvinistic country songs that are being called out in “Girl In A Country Song.” The writers of those songs in particular deserve to be slapped around for a while.
Anyway, I’m starting to get the picture regarding Maddie & Tae. Borchetta himself wants these two to “re-engage teenage girls in the format” like Taylor Swift did. They’re also good looking and have Big Machine’s marketing muscle behind them. That guy Dan Huff is involved. So yeah, I reckon they’ll be a huge hit group one way or another.
One thing that actually made me groan in the EPK, was hearing Scott Borchetta start to say “There is a gaping hole for a female act…” on country radio. Yeah, no shit, Scott! It’s so obvious that mainstream radio has nothing to do with freedom or diversity, and everything to do with marketing preordained brands to fit specific demo groups. So regardless of whether mainstream radio is skewing male right now, there is apparently enough of a void in the teen girl sector of the market that this group will be set up to occupy the space that Swift is aging away from. And I guess Kacey Musgraves, Brandy Clark,and others just aren’t needed because the Miranda brand is already fulfilling that market niche, or something.
July 2, 2014 @ 4:46 pm
I cross-posted with Melissa, who cringed at some of the same stuff. Yes, the corporate speak is appalling. I thought the line about “activating” Maddie & Tae made them sound like country girl-bots being housed in a warehouse on Music Row somewhere. Somebody should “activate” the humanity feature on Borchetta’s speech drive.
July 3, 2014 @ 12:20 pm
Regardless of how they end up being marketed, I liked what I heard of Maddie & Tae’s music in that EPK. I will reserve my judgement on them until I’ve actually heard their music, but so far they seem promising regardless of Borschetta’s involvement.
July 2, 2014 @ 6:19 pm
I contacted the music director of our local country station here in Detroit, 99.5 WYCD. WYCD is owned and operated by CBS Radio and is both live and local in all major dayparts. Anyways, I suggested that he take a look and listen to Sturgill Simpson’s “Metamodern Sounds in Country Music” album. He said he would and said he would in-fact bring it up in their weekly music meetings. Whether or not he actually did/would is a different story.
However, he brought to my attention one critical point. He stated that it is almost impossible for an act not signed to a major label to be played on a big-market station like WYCD in Detroit. If nothing else, his honesty about my suggestion was somewhat refreshing.
July 3, 2014 @ 11:12 am
That’s exactly right. This is why smaller indie labels struggle to promote songs to get into the Top 10 or Top 15 (it took a year for Craig Morgan’s song to go Top 15), It took 10 years for Broken Bow to break into consistent ability to promote. Radio is worried that indie artists and labels will come and go and thus left with a song fans want but no longer promoted, whatever that means.
July 2, 2014 @ 7:40 pm
Most people here, myself included, wait to form our opinion on a song or musician until we figure out the intention behind the music. With bro-country, it has been easy to pinpoint artists who are just out to make a buck vs those who are truly artists. But now even songs that might sound pleasing to the ear and have what seems like a honest message could also be a ploy just to get my dollar. It is exhausting. I have always felt a little guilty if I enjoy a gimmicky pop-country or bro-country song because I hate to support people like borchetta who are just out to make a buck. At this point I want to stop caring about who sings a song, what label they are on, or what sub-genre it falls under. If it sounds good it sounds good.
July 6, 2014 @ 2:11 pm
I see the kind of oroburous stuff in many other areas as well. Take for example the GBT community. There is so much damn nitpicking and infighting over dumb shit like is Tranny offensive instead of being a united front that NOTHING gets done. I think it is part the group/fans that are responsible for this but I also think outside influences surely don’t intended to set up a pow-wow where we iron out th kinks and come together. There too much to be made in NOT getting along, I find. No matter what the topic or product.