Josh Ritter is No Brad Paisley

Amidst all the wanton downloading that accompanied my reading of every goddamn best-of list I came across back in December, I came away with about half of Josh Ritter's most recent album, The Historical Conquests of Josh Ritter. It's good stuff, if perfectly straight down the middle in its execution of well-trod Americana. I was listening to it the other day and had a mini-debate with myself: I kinda want to buy the full album, because it's filled with hooks and is just, well, fun and good-natured and... nice. But occasionally that niceness comes dangerously close to being boring and/or banal, in the way most mainstream hits are. In particular it was "Right Moves" that brought on that feeling. I like the song, but it made me think, "This could be a radio hit, in the sense that if it were a radio hit, I don't think I'd even notice it." The structure of the song is classic (by which I mean cliche), the chorus feels manufactured, the lyrics not particularly insightful or clever.

Yet! I like the song. Not my favorite of the bunch I have, but I like it. So for a minute my self-debate got heated, as Charitable Scott accused Cynical Scott of being an elitist—"Maybe you should give more mainstream stuff a chance, snob!" Then the Grammys came on, and Brad Paisley played his hit song "Ticks." At which point Charitable Scott said "never mind, this shit is idiotic." Comparing Ritter and Paisely really throws into relief the difference between true mainstream pop and merely straightforward, clean songwriting. For as much as "Right Moves," to these ears, is not very far removed from, say, "Bad Day," watching the video for "Ticks" is a reminder of how thoroughly calculated each and every break, every hook, every lift of the eyebrow is.

Elsewhere, Claire Howorth has a detailed breakdown of Paisley's poetic lyrics over at This Recording.

‘Cause I’d like to see you out in the moonlight
I’d like to kiss you way back in the sticks
I’d like to walk you through a field of wildflowers
And I’d like to check you for ticks.

Indeed! Paisley is truly makin' all the right moves, singin' me the right blues.

Comments

[Paul]

Scott,

I love how you get so detailed about how we appreciate and interact with the music we choose to listen to. It's great stuff. My own opinion is that Josh Ritter is kind of boring (as you allude to) and that Brad Paisely is boring AND annoying (Is a cowboy hat really necessary? And a paisely guitar?).

Your post touches on a lot of things I've been pondering. First, sometime I am going to have to try to figure out why I love almost all old country music and hate almost all new country music (meaning Nashville hits for both old and new). When did the switch occur? What happened?

Second, why is alt-country/Americana so boring (or cliche) these days? Does it have to be? Am I missing the really good, innovative stuff? Is it even possible for alt-country/Americana to be innovative? Is country music played out?

Thanks.

[Richard]

While I like a few current mainstream country artists (such as Miranda Lambert), I do tend to avoid it, though that has a lot to with habit and exposure. I think one problem with it is that it's basically classic rock with "country" signifiers. Country that is made by people who grew up listening to Zeppelin and Kiss (and the Eagles), along with like Willie Nelson and Dolly Parton or whatever. (I think this is also why it's become more and more popular. I know plenty of people who did not grow up listening to country music, but love it now, and who have little to no connection with what has been going on in rock since the 70s.)

I have to say that I think a lot (not all) of the disdain some of us have for it is classist, as well as anti-pop. (I still hear people say they like "everything, well, everything except for country and rap".)

[scott pgwp]

Paul -

>>My own opinion is that Josh Ritter is kind of boring (as you allude to) and that Brad Paisely is boring AND annoying

The content of my post, whittled down to one sentence! (I'm being too hard on Ritter, though.)

>>(Is a cowboy hat really necessary?)

Indeed, I think it is! Without it, you might realize just how small this kid is, and his song that is this close to being about date rape would get him nothing other than a punch in the nose. He needs, as Richard notes above, a signifier.

>>Second, why is alt-country/Americana so boring (or cliche) these days? Does it have to be? Am I missing the really good, innovative stuff? Is it even possible for alt-country/Americana to be innovative? Is country music played out?

All good questions and I hope someone more knowledgable comes along and answers them. I had an alt-country phase a few years ago but haven't kept up. Lately, thanks mostly to getting into older country acts here and there, I feel the phase coming on again. For now I think I'll stick with you and mine the archives rather than look for new shit, but maybe someone reading knows different.

Richard -

>>I have to say that I think a lot (not all) of the disdain some of us have for it is classist, as well as anti-pop. (I still hear people say they like "everything, well, everything except for country and rap".)

Class, perhaps. Definitely culture, though. In the case of both hip hop and mainstream country I have no real connection to the rural or urban cultures from which they come. In either case I might find a song I like on a gut level but have trouble enjoying due to the lyrical content. Whether allusions to automobiles, misogynism, the type of alchohol they consume, etc. (That is NOT meant to summarize either genre entirely, of course.) I could probably go on about this...

As for "anti-pop" - "pop" is a slippery word, as I like a lot--a lot of music that is all melody and harmony, simple song structures, etc. I don't embrace Britney or Paisely, et al., except the occasional abberation or guilty pleasure, so in that sense perhaps we are talking about being "anti-pop." But the thing I react negatively to is typically not the song itself but the production, the flawlessness. If I cannot detect flaws--which, personally, I associate with human-ness--then I'm usually turned off by the song. That's really the difference between Ritter and Paisely, and why I am attracted to the former and not the latter.

[Richard]

In this case I'm using "pop" merely in its sense of "widely popular".

I'm curious about this point about flawlessness. It seems odd to me. I wonder if it really holds up under scrutiny. Though perhaps I'm reading more into the word than you mean. If you mean the commpression, the vocal effects (where a singing performance is altered to be more "perfect"--I forget what the tool is), and things like that, then I probably agree. Though I guess it depends on the intended effect...

[scott pgwp]

Yes, the compression, the pitch modification (there is a correct term for this - I don't remember it either). Also the virtuosic playing of the instruments - no wrong notes, no falling behind the beat. All notes perfectly clear and crisp. The first chorus sounding identical to the second chorus--as if they only recorded it once and just punched it in each time they needed to.

It all just feels factory-made.

[Jeremy]

Anti-pop is such an interesting topic and one that I have such a hard time figuring out. Whatever the answer, it is clearly the reason that old country is lovable while new country is so awful. New country (post-garth country) is really just pop wearing wranglers (see keith urban).

But that just begs the question. I still don't know why I don't like pop. I refuse (maybe wrongfully) to believe that it is just high mindedness -- that I'm just averse to popular things because they're popular (I'm old enough now to be over that right?). and as cliche as it is, I, along with all of you I'm sure, can cite a bunch of hit makers that I love despite their MTV fame (I won't do it now, but you know what I mean).

So what is it? I think it's basic market stuff -- music's version of evolution, natural selection. The fact that 15 year old girls buy a lot of music means the larger markets are going to be filled with music that appeals to 15 year old girls. It just so happens that 15 year old girls have VERY different taste than I do. Therefore, the major markets are filled with music I'm not interested in.

I disagree that it's the production qualities (I can still love music with pitch correction). I disagree that it's classist (like I said above, I refuse to think it's all about hating what's popular for that reason alone). I really think it's just that the music in the major market is different from what I'm interested in. Other markets cater to me. and because fewer people are interested in the same things I am, those markets tend to be smaller. those records tend to sell less.

[scott pgwp]

Jeremy, well said.

I think the demographic thing is right on target. In film, for instance, debate over quality or popularity (or the relation between the two) seems to be negated by the acknowledgment that demographics is the key factor. Most movies are made for teenage boys and that is a widely accepted fact. It would make sense, since the same corporate bosses ultimately run the film industry as the music industry, that the same forces are at play.

[Richard]

When I said "classism" I was referring specifically to country--a lot of people who will allow themselves to dig some chart pop, maybe because it's suddenly cool to (Britney, Justin Timberlake), still have a hard time getting with country. Often for all the same reasons earlier rock fans disliked older country when it was new, except that that older country is now acceptable.

Your point about demographics is valid, except that what I noticed when I finally started to bother noticing (?) some chart pop was that a lot of it was much more adventurous, sonically, than the vast majority of indie rock. Which is partly why it's become "cool" to accept some of that stuff.