Joe here. These ideas have been bouncing around in my head for a long while now and I finally have decided to put them on paper. There is some political philosophy discussed herein, but I urge you think deeply about these ideas and dissociate them from current political discussion. These ideas relate far more to human nature then they do politics. Hope you enjoy. This one took nearly a month to assemble.
Why are we seeing a slow shift towards organic sounds on country radio? Why is it that the most popular act in the independent scene rose to fame by recording acoustic ballads where the production value is roughly equivalent to music recorded one hundred years ago? Why is Charley Crockett a thing?
In order to explain the nature of the throwback influence on the modern scene, we have to discuss some politically adjacent discussion. To begin, let us define our terms. We are aiming for a definition of mentality rather than group affiliation. Please don’t be offended.
Reactionary: in its simplest sense, we think of it as an almost Amish style impulse to take things back to when they were better. Aiming towards the “status quo ante“. In the words of the contemporary thinker Mark Lilla (The Shipwrecked Mind- On Political Reaction; Mark Lilla (2016), “Where others see the river of time flowing as it always has, the reactionary sees the debris of paradise drifting past his eyes”.
Conservative: As an -ism, oft confused with reactionary impulses (reasonable because there is a strong demographic crossover). Conservatism is a conservationism with a focus on stability. Yes, change is inevitable, but by slowing it down and maintaining the institutions and ideas that have worked for society in the past, we can make the future changes more easily digested. Russell Kirk, the famed 1950’s conservative thinker summarized this idea in his 1953 book The Conservative Mind. One of his six tenets of conservative philosophy was that “a recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence” (Russell Kirk and the Age of Ideology (2004); Gerald J. Russello).
Note that the idea is presented not as pure antimodernism, but as a guide to embrace the confusion of modernity via societal checks and balances. Prudence, not negation. Contrast that with the reactionary creed of yanking us back to a golden age in entirety. The revolutionary, or its less radical cousin the progressive, views the stream of history as flowing towards a better day. The reactionary views the stream as flowing in precisely the wrong direction. The conservative hedges between those views with a bias towards the latter. Similar, sure. Often operating in tandem, one thousand percent. Sufficient air between reactionary and conservative ideologies to be a useful heuristic for defining artistic endeavors which personify these mentalities and crystallize them into art? I think yes. Lilla certainly feels the distinction is eminently clear. To quote, “Reactionaries are not conservatives.”
This may not be the definition to which you are personally accustomed. For good reason. Neither of these definitions are nuanced or whole, but they will suffice on a basic level. Additionally, neither of these map particularly well to the political conception of conservatism, as evidenced by parts of the UK Conservative Party, or by a large swath of the USA Republican Party.
Let’s additionally analyze the nature of backlash. Backlash is a strongly reactionary impulse. It is a negative response to newness. However, it is not a guarantee. After all, change is the fabric of our life. Restaurants open and close. Kids grow up. Styles change. A general aversion to change may be true in some instances, but it does not describe our lives. For every change that we go kicking and screaming into, there are many others that we gladly embrace.
The key to understanding the idea of backlash is comfort. Humans strive for comfort among all else. It is one of the backbones of our lives. (Adherents of Victor Frankl, I am sorry. There is much to be said for the deriving of purpose and meaning as the prime motivator for life, but at least to my eyes, the average human is far more motivated by a desire for comfort. If you don't understand this previous bit, please read Victor Frankl's amazing Man’s Search For Meaning. For the philosophically curious, I’m working within a modified understanding of Maslow’s Hierarchy. It may not explain the deepest of human yearning, but it is remarkably effective at understanding the essential factors that guide our daily lives in spite of being more on the pop psychology side of things). Comfort falls into place as one of the primary stimuli (for instance, Shelter would fall into this generic umbrella of comfort) which makes it crucial to understanding our society. The general thesis can be summed up as such; We are fine with change, so long as it aids our desire for comfort. A new restaurant with good food opening up nearby only enhances our gluttonous possibilities. Growing up allows us to accomplish more of our dreams. A changing fashion allows us new ways to express ourselves and explore new fun ideas. Nothing too earth shattering. Other times, change allows us to live more comfortably with ourselves mentally. Instituting a no tree nuts policy in school does increase annoyance when packing lunch for your kid, but it also allows you to breathe easier about not accidentally killing a fourth grader with a whiff of Jif.
When change bothers us is when it threatens our comfort. These are the points in time where you get whiplash from the drastic changes. Some “other” thing- modernity, the other political party, a nebulous cultural wind etc.- has come and interfered with the comfortable stasis we were enjoying. Immediately we put up defenses and fight back. Eventually things even out to a new point of stasis that incorporates some of the old ways as well as folding in some of the new changes. Overreach begets a backlash.
The American populace in many ways demonstrates this sort of aggressively change averse, stasis focused conservatism, and that leads to a strong societal bias towards the status quo. Please note that this does not map onto the list of priorities that each party has and may be interpreted differently for different people. For one, New Deal style government involvement is the norm and the slow expansion of the various welfare programs associated with that model of governance is simply natural evolution. For another, the more hands off libertarian approach to welfare is the “true” status quo and the New Deal is an ugly scar marring the face of American freedom. Each perspective has its own understanding of status quo, and both wish to preserve that conception. Very different opinions, but the same fundamental human impulse is in the driver seat.
Perhaps this stasis driven consensus is true of other countries' politics as well. I have not studied them in as much depth. The interesting thing about these pseudo coalition style political parties in the states is the way in which they push and pull. One party seizes control for a sizable chunk of time and they tend to overreach and push further than the populace is willing to go. Even though the parties possess different broad characteristics, the parties adjust towards the reaction du jour. The first to adjust and incorporate the new backlash cohesively into their body politic benefits. What is interesting, is that often it is the pure reactionaries who beget the backlash, but moderating conservative influence defines the lasting nature of the backlash. Full blown reactionary change is discomfiting. The conservative compromise between new and old often remains as the most comfortable choice for our beleaguered brains. To emphasize, this is the mentality we are talking about. Even in political discourse, the mentality and attitudes of the body politic is far and away the most important factor in determining the next societal step forward.
What does this have to do with music and more specifically country music? Perhaps this will ruffle a few feathers, but to my eyes, country music is a rather conservative genre. It gets punctuated with periods of rapid progressivism and the ensuing reactions and backlash trigger almost automatically. In an odd way, it is emblematic of the general tenor of American society. Certainly more so than the rampant progressivism and boundary pushing of pop music. This is not to imply that country music is some bastion of right wingism and pop music represents left wingism. The comparison is with the magnetism of the status quo in country music that the pop world doesn’t possess.
This conservative nature can be found in the pride taken in tradition in country music. There is pride in the geographic sense, but more importantly, in the actual music.
The popular country music of 2023 bears minimal similarity to the country music of 1923 obviously, but a reasonably clear line of transmission can be found. It pulls from a variety of geographically specific traditions and relies on near identical instruments. It conserves via holding onto what resonates. It adapts and evolves the myriad of disparate, but distinct elements in an evolutionary process that changes the corpus in recognizable ways without mutating into another species entirely.
One hundred years ago, country music used guitars, fiddles and banjos to discuss working class life and values. Soon after that in the 1940’s steel guitar was added. Nowadays, the same instruments are used to detail the equivalent lifestyle of the audiences. A simplistic example to contrast with pop music, there is far more in common between Luke Combs and Jimmie Rodgers than there is between Doja Cat and Benny Goodman. Yes, the generation of rural musicians who grew up on Jimmie Rodgers and Benny Goodman merged and synthesized those two very different musical styles into the country music of their generation. And similarly, the current generation of country artists merge the country music of their youth, whether that be Alan Jackson or Brooks and Dunn and combine that with the world of pop music they exist in. (I literally saw a short clip of Randall King covering Biggie Smalls. Somehow it still sounds like a long lost George Strait demo. Randall is truly one of a kind.) That country constant to which one adds flavor and the tenuous balance between the transmitted core and the external additives is what travels throughout the generations. That core is the musical equivalent of Kirk’s “faith in custom, convention, and prescription”. It’s when the essentially conservative core is threatened by “progressive overreach” from the additives that backlash ensues. The circle shan’t be unbroken, so when it is threatened, the wagon’s circle the camp and the steel guitar brigade comes running. Via this sociological lens, we will now take a look at the current pushback to the overreach of the past decade’s much maligned foray into rock and pop influences.
(Editor Joe here. Please put down the shoe and refrain from throwing it at me. Yes, I know that the mid 1990s pop country revolution was a backlash to the overly traditional quagmire the genre found itself in by the midpoint of the decade. I don’t think that disproves the general thesis. I would view that as a similar dynamic pushing back on the homogenous impulse in the overly commercialized world of mainstream country. If anything, it is evidence that the balance can also be threatened by a staid dominant conservatism. Balance is key on both sides. Overreach is possible on both sides. Lastly, if we are being honest, the revolutionary and the reactionary share more than either of them would like to admit.)
Let’s set the table for the current iteration of the cycle. The buzzy music of the prior decade was either over the top, hard rock influenced country, or overly softened and smoothened, R&B influenced country. As those sounds both oversaturated the radio waves, thereby deeply changing the popular sound, image and tenor of what country music was, naturally a reactionary force was unleashed in response. This response has been dubbed a new neotraditional movement.
I would argue that there are two distinct movements happening. They tend to get lumped together, but have distinctly different characteristics which map nicely onto the exhaustively aforementioned definitions of reactionary and conservative. By defining and demonstrating the subtle differences within, we can appreciate what each contributes to the “body politic” of country music, why this is the precise moment these styles are getting a moment in the sun, and perhaps come to an understanding why some kinds of music click with us more than others.
The first movement consists of artists fully disregarding modern country and attempting to simply recreate the music from the decade they perceive to have been the most authentic. The return to Eden. I would call this not a neotraditional country- it’s usually label- but a neovintage country. If you were to listen to these records, you would think that some dusty unknown record previously forgotten to history was discovered. This vintage recreation exists on all aspects of the record. Unlike fashion, which also pulls from the past and merges with modern detail, (after all skinny jeans were popular in the 1970’s, but 2010’s skinny jeans don’t mimic every detail. Inspiration, not plagiarism), here there is not a hint of identifiable modern flavor attached to the record. It distinctly belongs to a decade outside of the one written in the copyright notice. This is the reactionary backlash to the slick inauthenticity and “non-countriness” of modern music. Modern music sucks, let us see Nashville burn and return us to the glory of days gone by. Tremendous attention to detail is apparent in this artform, with painstakingly devotion focused on replicating every fiber of the golden age. The artistic creativity needed to emulate conditions that don’t exist anymore is tremendous. It is the sonic equivalent of making a period accurate historical drama. Lord knows, Hollywood never gets those right. These fellas strive to, and more often than not they succeed. Sometimes the effort for period authenticity even extends to placing faux vinyl filters on the audio, for that maximum effect. Interestingly enough, this more reactionary music started to achieve popular success during the peak of bro country. Artists such as Sturgill Simpson and Tyler Childers led the way and created underground movements that built towards the current wave of organic old-school influenced music.
Specific artists that I would like to identify as belonging to this vein of reactionary, neovintage music would be Brennen Leigh, Charley Crockett, and Joshua Hedley. Each has their own particular method and decade of preferred styling, but the effective result is clear. Full immersion in that old time period and sound. The reactionaries dream. Eden rebuilt.
Take this song by Joshua Hedley. Focus on the arrangement. The choir sounds fainter than the intimate vocals commonplace in modern music. When choir vocals needed to be recorded concurrent with regular vocals, the result was a softer touch to the harmonies. Extraordinarily effective, but very uncommon in today's world when via digital layering you can easily double over a single singer or adjust the volume in post. The anachronistic bass driven backbeat doesn't give the oomph to today's audiences the way it once did. Nonetheless Hedley perseveres and creates his art with these methods. The point is the recreation. The vintage setting extends to the costume design and set choices for the music video. This is the neovintage experience.
The second style we see, I’d argue, is a more conservative method that uses the traditional template to guide their sound forwards. It views the past not as a destination, but as an inspiration. The past has value. There was something there that deeply resonated with audiences. Perhaps the lack of digital technologies made the end result more authentic. These artists like to incorporate those pinpointed elements and dynamics into their modern music. Artists like Jon Pardi or Aaron Watson (plenty of others as well, but I am very partial to these two) fall into this category. This category of artist certainly has modern sound design and fidelity. The drums have punch, not that tinny, pseudo vintage drum sounds Crockett and the neovintage artists adore. These neotraditional artists often embrace modern songwriting and its efficient imagery. Percussion is not just a means of rhythm making, but an essential instrument in a way that country music of the past didn’t reckon with. However, in spite of these modern touches, the music still has a distinct connection to that olde tyme music. Think raucous honky-tonk rhythms, bolstered by the exuberance of an over the top drum line. Think lonesome country ballads with achingly powerful vocals singing traditional lyrics and complex layered guitar picking. Something of the old guides into the new. The old is not abandoned for the fools gold of pure innovation, yet it is not left to stultify without creative growth. Identity is maintained, but not at too high a cost. Perhaps we can’t go back to Eden, but we endeavor to not lose sight of what once was, in the effort to create what will be.
Take this song by Aaron Watson.
It is a pretty traditional arrangement. I would point to the noticeable high fidelity of the steel guitar. Instead of sounding thin and tinny, like the above discussed track by Hedley, it has a fullness and fidelity. The drums, although simple, are an essential part of the track, even pairing with the fiddle for a solo. The rhythm is dictated by the drums, as is typical in modern music, and not by the bass guitar. The melody, although simple, sounds very familiar to old school fans' ears. The song is very much on the conservative side, with little “modernity” outside of the small touches of acquiescence. There are no synthetic beats or overt rock touches. It remains very country with other genres influences either nonexistent or very minimal. Still, fundamentally a different mode of modern old school artistry than the Hedley song. The video is clearly indicative of this. There is no attempt at recreating an older scene. Pieces of older footage are interspersed into the video when it serves a narrative purpose, i.e. showing the rodeo cowboy in action, and not for faux vintage setting purposes.
Of course, balance is ephemeral and lofty goals do not guarantee success in achievement. In such a subjective field, one listener's balance may be wildly out of sync with the others. It’s the ideal that is being pursued. These are the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of the artistic choices made. I personally think that both of these songs properly attain the vibe they are aiming at.
I think another interesting area where the contrast shows itself is in album covers. Neovintage artists strive to duplicate the look and feel of a record as it would be produced in the bygone golden age. Accurate clothing, fonts and other details all are in abundance. Neotraditional artists, although often co-oping old fashion imagery onto the album artwork, don’t strive for 100% accuracy. More often they simply take positive elements, whether that be bold colors, elaborate costumes, or more old fashioned settings and present that in tandem with more up to date elements as a distillation of their trad-but-modern vision. I present to you these two images:
I’ll let the details speak for themselves. Well mostly. Just want to point out what I see as the key difference. Pardi ditches his trademark old fashioned hat and melds modern conceptions of masculine sex appeal (his haircut is far more emblematic of a millenial than a hippie) with a dusty 1970’s ish vintage setting. Crockett goes full period. Both are remarkably effective in conveying what the themes of the album/song will represent. I’m partial to Crockett’s take here more, but that’s just personal taste.
To summarize, we have two artistic visions of backlash to overreach; the reactionary vision and the conservative vision. Country music is a status quo obsessed genre, so it lends itself to music in both of these molds. We see that both of these philosophical styles map nicely with the current neovintage and neotraditional movements.
Perhaps this framework can give a lens to understand why certain types of music get made, and why it resonates with particular audiences at given times. Charlie Crockett may not have had an audience if he came into the scene 30 years ago. What is now cool, may have been kitschy then. Timing and relationship to the vast broad scene as a whole goes a long way towards unwrapping artistic vision and appeal.
There is a lot to unpack here. I don’t think as listeners, we are obligated to fall into one side or another, but I do think this framework provides us a context by which to evaluate and understand our own taste in music.
These discussed concepts help explain why someone who is a fan of the more modern neo vintage sound can’t begrudge the traditional bona fides of the new traditional artists. This also explains why old school traditionalists have gripes with the new neotraditionalists. It can also explain why there might not be as much overlap with fans of Carly Pearce and Brennan Leigh. Both sides look back and look forward, but in fundamentally different ways.
Fin
Thanks for reading,
Joe