The long road ahead-Can we bring real country back.

Bill Dobkins · Post by **Bill Dobkins** » 19 Feb 2007 6:23 am

I knew there was something about you that I liked.WE have a lot in common. I also do genealogy, and no doubt I have some of your family in my files. Your right about name changes. A lot of that was done when our ancestors came to America. Back to Garth, I actually played with him here in Rolla one time before he got famous. He was a nice guy,a struggling songwriter.He was here visiting his brother and came to the club where I was playing. Its funny, had it not been for knowing his brother I doubt if I'd let set in. Ironic isn't it...

Eric Jaeger · Post by **Eric Jaeger** » 19 Feb 2007 9:47 am

Rambling thoughts...

Market research never gives you any information you didn't have going in. Almost by definition, people cannot tell you they want something they can't imagine or haven't been exposed to. In my business (high tech) this phenomenon is well studied (think "Crossing the Chasm") but all we can do is accept that change can't possibly come out of market research. Breakthoughs - new music, new styles, resurgence on older styles, new delivery of music - never come from established business models.

So the centralization (monopolization?) of radio by Clearchannel (I think they have 1400 stations, the next down has 500?) means that that radio content will not change unless something happens outside it to force it to change. But that won't come from radio because they control it all. Which to my mind is another reason to wish the FCC would break Clearchannel up. Variety is healthy.

But I think all of this will change as the Internet and satellite make mainstream radio (and TV) irrelevant. Which has the potential, for a while, of being massively liberating for music. Performers will be able to go straight to the fans. And satellite doesn't work by "broadcasting"... it's "narrow-casting". Show them ANY group that might have some economic clout and they'll create a channel for it. Plenty of bandwidth. In a way, this a return to the late 60's when bands went thought ballrooms and underground radio to reach listeners (to the frustration of the suits).

So I think those of us who like this musical form (whatever it is) should pray and cheer. Pray the trend continues. Cheer those who are creating the movement that looks like it ultimately will destroy radio and music monopolies.

I hope I'm not too optimistic.

-eric

Marlin Smoot · Post by **Marlin Smoot** » 19 Feb 2007 10:14 am

Eric,
I understand what you're saying. Research in my line of work has always been a tool and not the end all. I have found change can come from market research. Established business models are always doing research, that's why, for example McDonalds will have a new sandwich for you to try...sure its still a chicken sandwich...but its still different in presentation and marketing. That's why Chevy has some new retro styled autos, its why bellbottoms made a come back in the fashion industry...the list can go on and on.

We are comsumers of brand loyality, we usually but the same brands at the grocery store...when we find something we like, we usually stick with it. Case in point: Classic Country music.

How the research project is done is important, you can expose something new to a consumer (new style, new music etc..) and collect the data without exposing to the masses first.

I understand how people will not trust research. First you must know who is doing the research, how the research is being conducted and to whom the research is being conducted to.

I've seen data and wanted to know how they did the research and how large the sample was. I think people would be interested in knowing 500 people in a research project account for a product and its development.

Clear Channel is looking to sell all their radio stations below market #100. This may open up opportunities for the local Mom & Pop buyers and loosen the grip corporations have with their playlists.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Feb 2007 11:09 am

Established business models are always doing research, that's why, for example McDonalds will have a new sandwich for you to try...sure its still a chicken sandwich...but its still different in presentation and marketing. That's why Chevy has some new retro styled autos, its why bellbottoms made a come back in the fashion industry...the list can go on and on.

I'm not trying to gore anybody's ox, but a different chicken sandwich from McDonald's does nothing to change the fundamentals of the fast-food culture. GM jumping onto retro styling will never fix the major fundamental problems with the American automobile industry - I spent several years working in it, in Detroit. Market research is, by its very nature, reactive - put ones finger up into the wind and see which way it's blowing today, or use it to defend choices already decided upon. I just don't think we're going to fix our very real problems this way. I honestly don't think much of anybody really wants to get to the heart of "what is the real demand of the American people". I think most businesses are interested in selling people on what they want them to want, for myriad reasons. I view things as being outright adversarial, which is the reason monopoly control is so desperately needed.

I think real change happens when there is major technological or other external change, or there is a sea change in culture or politics which springs from grass roots efforts. The thing that worries me right now is that the overall system is so embedded with cronyism and, IMO, is so fundamentally corrupt, that it's very difficult to get heard, and unseen forces work against real change because too much power is consolidated in too few hands - much like in the days of the trusts that anti-trust legislation was supposed to fix. I do agree that the internet is a leveller of sorts - but there is a war going on for control of it. Time will tell whether the internet stays relatively free, as it is now. Frankly, without a truly non-controlled source of communication, I would be much more despairing about the future. I think these are things we need to really concern ourselves with.

I said before that I think there's lots of great music being made right now - in many ways, perhaps more than ever before. But most of it never sees the light of day in the mainstream. To me, that reinforces everything I have just said.

Dave Little · Post by **Dave Little** » 19 Feb 2007 11:16 am

Maybe Orwell meant to title his book "2084" but the publisher thought "1984" would get more attention. I wonder - how close will his tale fit reality in 2084?
Dave Little

Bobby Caldwell · Post by **Bobby Caldwell** » 19 Feb 2007 11:20 am

Why can't traditional country and new country be played back to back. They do it in almost all other kinds of music. Jazz stations play new and older cuts back to back as does pop stations that play Frank Sinatra and then Natalie Cole. Whats the problem with the so called country stations. It works for the others. Lets not forget the roots and where it all started. I think its time for a history lesson. Bobby

Herbie Meeks · Post by **Herbie Meeks** » 19 Feb 2007 11:53 am

Dave , I understand parts of what you are saying, I remember when the one way in , was like the old saying, Build a better mouse trap, But had to find a way in, That we called "Getting in The Back Door" past the Payola of those days, with a really unique song, That was getting a DJ on one, or more of the the then 50,000 watt stations, with an audience potential of hundreds of thousands ,Get a few spins, The audience calling to hear the song again, and here came the man from a big label, with a contract,
I am remembering several that I had played joints, and Ballrooms with, who did just this, also many that I had never met, But I think that back door is locked up now days.

Herbie

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Feb 2007 12:37 pm

But I think that back door is locked up now days.

Yeah - that's the part that worries me too. How the $^#% do you argue with a suit who quotes a marketing study made in LA, when the market is Pennsyltucky or some other place in the "heartland"? What in blazes do they think they know about it? I think it's more about "product simplification" than anything. Yeah, I worked on some of those kind of studies when I was in Detroit, too. It's no accident that the Plymouth and Oldsmobile divisions were closed - product simplification, which was a goal from at least as early as the 70s.

I also agree about playing good current music and classic cuts back-to-back. The blues is a another good example of a style that hasn't forgotten its roots. I'm no luddite - I think change is good, and of course, inevitable. But there's no reason not to celebrate the roots, too. Of course, new generations like to think they have "invented" something new and radically different, but that's the exception, not the rule, IMO.

Marlin Smoot · Post by **Marlin Smoot** » 19 Feb 2007 1:32 pm

Consultants in the radio business have made decisions based on research. That would include all formats.

The problem with playing a classic country cut next to a current country cut is simple; the station is not wanting to appeal to the upper demo. Most classic country comsumers are in the 45+ demo now and current mainstream country radio wants to appeal to the 18-49 demo, mainly female. The 34-49 demo as is the 12-18 demos are considered an added bonus to the ratings as the stations are really laser focused on the 18-34 demo.

Why are stations focused on 18-34 demo? Because the large advertising agencies are only buying that demo when they call on a radio station to place advertising. Its the demo with money to spend.

Why hasn't country radio splintered into several formats like rock, pop etc... because research has shown there is not an huge need to do that right now. There are exceptions, but not the rule.

It comes down to money. (imagine that) where advertising agencies want to buy a 18-49 demo and classic country will not make as much money as that demo plus the fact there simply is not enough listeners to support a classic country station and the fact that it will not make enough money to support it and the record industry won't support it either.

There are exceptions, and for the record, I love classic country too, but this is about business not music.

Bill Dobkins · Post by **Bill Dobkins** » 19 Feb 2007 1:37 pm

[quote="Bobby Caldwell"]Why can't traditional country and new country be played back to back.

I don't see why either, they use to.
Its about money not music ,They (whoever they are) say traditional don't sell, so don't play it, But if you don't play it (or market it )How will it sell. A small example. I did a CD and would like to sell some of them. I took one to my local country station. After about two months of being avoided on the phone, I went by the station and was told it just dont fit their format. Its funny WIL plays it, I heard Bill Mack has played it. Its also on Steel radio. Now i'm nobody in the big music Picture but there are a lot people locally who like me and would buy my CDs if they knew about them.( By the way go by Scotty's and pick one up from Dewitt or Don.. Let me know what you think. I'll tell them to give you one) I guess I'll have to stand in front of Wal-Mart and peddal them.
Now there's an Idea, I think I'll go to Wal-Mart and get them to start chain of Radio stations, then i can play what ever I want.

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 19 Feb 2007 1:37 pm

I have a question that has always bothered me in these arguments. When you talk about bringing back traditional country, are you talking about re-playing music from 30 years ago? Are we talking about a radio station devoted to George Jones, Loretta Lynn, etc? Or are we talking about music from new players and stars that are performed in a tradition country format (whatever that is)?

In other words, are you looking for new music played in a traditional country style or some sort of Light FM/soft rock type station playing the hits of the 50's, 60's, and 70's?

If you are looking for new music played in a traditional style, that implies that there are great musicians out there playing in that style who can't get air time. If there is nobody around who is new who is playing that style, who are they going to put on the air anyway? And if you just want an oldies station, isn't that what an IPod is for?

Bill Dobkins · Post by **Bill Dobkins** » 19 Feb 2007 2:01 pm

Bill, Your wright about the i'pod statement. I have a lot of the old music from CDs to 78s that i can listen to anytime I want.
But that isn't helping the people who brought them to life. People like George and Merl and so on are what made country what it is today.And we should respect them for that. Not only that, but it is good music and if they don't get played they dont make any money. They deserve better.
Del Reeves passed away, a long time opry member. Not one exec.. from the opry was there. Pete Fisher has stated. He won't stop until there are no grey hair seen on the opry.

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 19 Feb 2007 2:28 pm

Then is this about helping older musicians? Certainly there are lot of those to go around in every type of music, particularly jazz and blues. As well as actors

I wonder if propping people up past their prime is the best way to help them.

I remember Merle Haggard saying that the reason he started writing was to have a nest egg when I grew too old to play.

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 19 Feb 2007 2:50 pm

.... Rock does not eat its old as country did...
Todays kids are very familiar with much of the classic rock of the 50's 60's and 70's.. Take it from me, I play for the early 20 somethings every weekend.. They KNOW the old stuff,,and who performed it They still hear it daily,alongside current rock..However, they know NOTHING of any country music except for current hits from Kenny/Tim/Big and Rich etc.. the dreque they hear on CMT...

are you kidding me???.. I can almost understand a ""modern country"" fan not wanting to hear Webb Pierce, but not allowing let say Waylon Jennings hard driving style to be heard by todays "rock oriented" country fans borders on lunacy..

I guess too many of the founding fathers/mothers of country don't fit the pretty boy/glamour girl cookie cutter needed these days to get play...

The better looking you are, the more perfect your face,butt,boobs and hopefully blonde hair is, the bigger star you will be in our culture...only minimal talent is required.. looks???. now thats the ticket!... bob
,

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 19 Feb 2007 3:02 pm

I don't know. In many cases, the "stars" have themselves to blame. How many times did George Jones miss gigs because he was too wasted to go on. Other folks just kept working it, doing new things and staying relevant. Willie Nelson's not having any problems getting gigs. Just saw a great documentary on Richard Thompson on youtube. now there is a guy who never had any mainstream support, but he keeps at it, writing everyday from 9 to 5 and he packs the audiences in.

I know it is easier to blame the record companies. Maybe the stars themselves own some of the blame.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Feb 2007 4:26 pm

I'm with Bob Carlucci and Bill Dobkins on this. Every other style I can think of reveres its founders. Bill Monroe is revered as the founder of bluegrass, as are people like Ralph Stanley, Jimmy Martin, J.D. Crowe and hosts of others. Blues and rock fans alike understand and respect the contributions of people like Muddy Waters, the three KINGS, Chuck Berry, and many others - really, they're bigger stars than when they were alive, in many ways. You can't go down the radio dial without hitting several stations that overplay "classic rock". Jazz, classical, you name it - these people build on the shoulders of the giants who preceded them. Country is very unusual - aside from a few icons like Hank Williams, it is almost as if many are ashamed of the music's hillbilly roots. I don't get it.

I think George Jones is a bad example for what you're trying to show. Yes, he was "no-show Jones" for years. But frankly, I think George is one of the few that still commands serious respect at the box office and among younger artists. I don't think this has to do with any of the stuff you're suggesting. If it did, hardly anybody in the classic rock world would have any respect at all, eh?

I agree that there's an audience for alternative styles. I'm not bothered by the fact that these people aren't gonna become instant millionaires like rock stars. But I think a lot of them are really scuffling, and musical survival is hard, at best.

Why are stations focused on 18-34 demo? Because the large advertising agencies are only buying that demo when they call on a radio station to place advertising. Its the demo with money to spend.

I totally disagree with the last sentence. The demo with the real money to spend is the baby boomers. They've been at peak earnings for a long time, and completely dominate the "have the money" department, as a group. The reason they don't spend a lot on music is partly because they have other priorities, but to a large part - because the market research has become a self-fulfilling prophecy. IMO, companies want to market to less savvy, younger audiences. Lemme tell you - in a closely related field, the 40-plusers have completely dominated - that's the vintage guitar field. Boomers have been spending crazy money recapturing their youth for the last 20 years. Plenty of that money could have gone into the mainstream music biz - if there was lots of stuff they thought was worth buying. It ain't lack of money, IMO.

All my opinions, naturally.

Bob Carlucci · Post by **Bob Carlucci** » 19 Feb 2007 4:43 pm

My friend Dave was pretty much spot on.... WHERE is the reverence?.. the respect and admiration for those that blazed the trails???... The establishment RUNS AWAY from ANY link with the hallowed past of traditional country music... or so it would seem...

Hank probably listened to the Carter Family...Waylon and Willie to Hank , Dwight to Buck,etc etc.. there was a continuity of tradition while still allowing for individual expression and technical advancement.. decade after decade..the circle remained unbroken....

Who the heck did todays singing fashion models with Stetsons listen to??..

The tradition factor is dead... corporate murder in the name of demographics... Dave is right. There is VERY fine music out there.. however,the LAST place to look for it is on the radio or tv...bob

Marlin Smoot · Post by **Marlin Smoot** » 19 Feb 2007 5:10 pm

Dave,
I would agree with you. I guess I should have said; the 18-34 demo has the money to spend on CD's. Thats the demo that buys more CD's than any other demo and that's why record companys market to them, that's also why CMT has such a younger look, to pick up the younger demo.

Country radaio stations will tell you they want the 25-54 demo but they are focused on 18-34, mostly female.

Next time you're at a Wal-mart, hang out in the CD music department and see who's (demo's) are buying and looking at music. We call that 'hip pocket' research. My local Wal-Mart has a huge selection of Country CD's.

I can only relate what I've been through and have seen over the years. However, I have no reason why country radio has not honored the "classic" artists of yesterday except for a few.

Maybe because country radio has not splintered into several formats like rock, pop etc...has done. There has been no way for the listeners to come to the well for a drink of the past and to make it a choice. The choice's has been very limited.

Bill McCloskey · Post by **Bill McCloskey** » 19 Feb 2007 5:36 pm

Well, I'm certainly no expert but I haven't seen any lack of respect shown country music's founders, by musicians. Loretta Lynn had success with the CD she did with the White Strips guy, and he was dying to work with her. (BTW, how many of you bought that CD?). Rick Rubin created some of the best albums of Johnny Cash's career and treated him with total respect and he's been asked to be co-head of Columbia Records.

Muddy Waters was almost bared from the Band's Last Waltz concert because Robbie Robertson wanted Neil Diamond instead. It was only because of Levon Helm's threatening to walk out that kept him in the show. So much for respect.

Chuck Berry always got payment in cash up front because he was afraid of getting ripped off by promoters. So much for respect.

I don't see anything different in country music that is different than any other form of entertainment. You say that George Jones can still fill the room. You all say that boomers spend money. Than why are the other performers not selling out the room to boomers, who are certainly aware of their contribution.

I think the real answer is some stars adapted like Willie Nelson and still have an audience. Others didn't and are still playing the same old tunes they always did, and people got tired of it and they lost their audience. Young people spend most of the money on music and they want to hear and see music that they can relate to by people who are young, sexy, and their own age. And old boomers don't spend money, but sit around complaining that things were much better when they were young and sexy.

And I think the same thing has gone on since the beginning of time. No One liked Bach in Mozart's day. They thought Bach's kids were much better. He was known as Old Bach, and no one had any respect for the old reprobate .

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Feb 2007 5:50 pm

Marlin - yes, I think we're on the same page now. Definitely, Wal Mart is where I find my country records. I'm convinced there is still a strong market for classic country. The local cable radio even has the split - two different stations for country.

You may well be right about effect of lack of splintering into "classic" vs. "modern" on the airwaves. I think a lot of the marketing people really may be convinced that there's no market, and no interesting "buyer demographic". I just think they're wrong, and missing all kinds of opportunities. That's their privilege - but not on "our" airwaves.

I also sense that the payola thing is still there and even bigger and more insidious than before. The 50s payola scandal seems timid in comparison to the bucks necessary to promote a record these days. That whole 50s scandal kinda reminds me of the scene from Casablanca where Claude Rains has to shut down Bogart's casino, and says "I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!", to which Bogart's croupier says to Rains, "Your winnings, sir."

I still think the biggest problem is oligopoly control of mainstream broadcasting. Sure - I don't expect it to suddenly get great - back in the late 60s, AM radio was very limited, hence the push into 'underground' stations on FM. Now the internet is where that occurs. I guess what makes me mad is that these companies act as if they truly "own" the airwaves and have no responsibility to the public. It wouldn't take a major revolution to let them know otherwise, and I think that is long overdue. Taking their zero-sum game approach, why should we give a &%^$ about their shareholders? Those airwaves are "ours", not "theirs" - at least in the law. But until the FCC changes its approach, none of this will happen. The establishment is truly entrenched, and I don't think one party or another is going to change it.

Post by **Dave Mudgett** » 19 Feb 2007 6:06 pm

Bill - interesting that it's people like the Jack White and Rick Rubin pushing people like Loretta Lynn and Johnny Cash. I did buy Loretta's record and all of Cash's American Recordings records. Why did they need to turn to rock/punk producers to get a hearing? That is the lack of interest and respect from the very people whose bread they buttered for decades. I remember the flap when Loretta was told they didn't have room for her at Fan Fair several years back.

I still argue that performers and fans of contemporary blues, bluegrass, reggae, jazz and other music forms show respect for their progenitors, Robbie Robertson notwithstanding. And promoters everywhere try to extract everything they can - that has nothing to do with style, nor anything to do with what other musicians and fans do.

... and they want to hear and see music that they can relate to by people who are young, sexy, and their own age.

What does this have to do with music? I guess that's the point. Going back to the swing era and earlier, lots of musical icons have been much older than the teenagers who put them on the map. I still argue music does matter. Yes, there is always a level of generation gap, but it has, IMO, been massaged into a generational Grand Canyon these days, purely based on age. I didn't even notice that extreme in the hippie "generation gap" days. The great classic blues and jazz artists and beat poets and musicians were revered, because of their obvious quality as artists.

Ray Jenkins · Post by **Ray Jenkins** » 19 Feb 2007 6:22 pm

Guys, we still have Curtis Potter,Ray Pennington,Darrel McCall Bobby Flores,Justin Trevino,Ray Price,Johnny Cox Fred Justice,Jr.Knight(Leon) Roy Rosetta,Paul Polish,the list goes on and on. They never quit the music we love and need too hear,Let's just support these guys.
I have what is called the Az. Carport Pickers Jam every year(now up and coming twice a year),I say to hell with N.Y and L.A.We have our own support groups around the country,get together and do your own thing.They don"t want us, we don't need them.Build on this idea from here

Ray

Twayn Williams · Post by **Twayn Williams** » 19 Feb 2007 6:26 pm

There is no such thing as "real" country music. Genres are marketing illusions. Listen to what music you want to, buy what music you want to, make what music you want to.

Herbie Meeks · Post by **Herbie Meeks** » 19 Feb 2007 8:16 pm

Radio Stations, Program directors, Payola

The FCC is not doing their job regulating these

The Sponsors who pay the bills, are getting short changed

Also, I would guess most listeners, of today, listen while
in their Vehicles,

Herbie

Eric Jaeger · Post by **Eric Jaeger** » 19 Feb 2007 8:25 pm

Marlin,

I do indeed understand that progamming decisions are made based on delivering "ears" to an advertiser. And not just any ears, but those who wil want to spend money on that advertiser's product. No question. But...

As a (musical) example, I have a movie that is a dramatization of the Odyssey, but set in Depression America, with a bunch of dumb hillbillies as the heroes. Oh, and we'll run a soundtrack of the most obscure acoustic old-time tunes we can find. Sounds like a lead balloon, right?

Of course, I've just described "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou", which was a huge smash and almost singlehandedly pushed acoustic music back into the mainstream (kids asking for Ralph Stanley!). My point is that no amount of market research would have created that movie.

A radio example might be the way "progressive" rock stations (programming on-the-fly, Miles followed by BB followed by the Dead..) destroyed Top 40. No way to predict it.

In both cases, in order for creativity to express itself something new had to happen. I'm suggesting that between satellite and the internet Clearchannel may well become as relevant as the newspaper..... or the dodo.

I frankly don't much care if "traditional" country makes a comeback. I like it, but I have CDs. I care a lot that creative people have the chance to do something new with the elements we used.

-eric

-eric