Nashville is a mainstreaming, corporate giant that tries to force every act into the same kind of proven, salable sound. That's been true since Country Music has been a thing. It was the reason that Willie Nelson left Nashville and returned to Texas, where in Luckenbach and Austin he founded his own thing. It's why he asked Waylon Jennings to join him, and the two of them built the Outlaw revolution.
The thing they had going for themselves, though, was that they were both great musicians. They had great bands that could do something different, worthy of doing in its own right.
I'm not convinced that is true
here.
At least so far, this guy is just selling Nashville music with political lyrics. That's fine; he can do what he wants. But he's not the same kind of revolutionary.
6 comments:
Yeah, musically he's not revolutionary, but he is bucking the country music establishment, which has been bought by lefties. I think it's good to have his perspective out there, and it's good there are platforms he can self-publish on so that he can be a successful country musician without the Nashville suits.
Conservatives look to history .. even relatively recent history. Consider the Dixie Chicks.
A local/regional group that splintered via Nashville, picked up fame via nepotism, and self-destructed by dissing their own president in front of a European crowd ... On the comeback trail they've run "a-fowl" of their own NAME. "The Chicks" aren't untalented, or forgotten. But they're hardly any longer beloved.
I mean, I had forgotten them until you brought them up. Did they do anything worth remembering?
Bakersfield CA also had its own branch of country
Yeah, I think his name was Dwight Yoakam. :-D
He was a latecomer, though legit. Buck Owens and Merle Haggard were earlier figures.
Post a Comment