Two years after Part II, Brad Paisley released his third album, 2003’s Mud On the Tires. This one is a sentimental favorite of mine… I’d number it among his 2-3 best records.
This album is when critics and fans alike really started to stand up and take notice of Paisley’s talent. He’d had modest hits on his first two records, and they were well-received, but Mud On the Tires took things to a whole new level.
The album’s title is taken from today’s SOTD, in which it’s meant quite literally, but it’s also a metaphor for Paisley’s career. He felt that at this point he’d been around the block a few times — had a little mud on his tires — and could start stretching his wings a bit.
That means things like ‘Spaghetti Western Swing,’ a mash-up of a spoken-word comedy skit that would fit on Prairie Home Companion and some blistering guitar work. And it means a jazzy little number like ‘Make a Mistake‘ that actually drew high praise from frequent commenter/country hater Dana.
As Paisley put it, “We gave them the 10 songs they’d expect, then we give them 6 or 7 other songs (leaving listeners to wonder) what in the world was he smoking?”
This title track is one of my all-around favorite Paisley songs. The melody is sublime and the performance (both musically and vocally) beautifully evokes the spirit of getting off the beaten path.
The bank finally came through
And I’m holdin’ the keys to a brand new Chevrolet
Have you been outside it sure is a nice night
How about a little test drive
Down by the lake
There’s a place I know about where the dirt road runs out
And we can try out the four-wheel drive
Come on now what do you say
Girl, I can hardly wait to get a little mud on the tires
‘Cause it’s a good night
To be out there soakin’ up the moonlight
Stake out a little piece of shoreline
I’ve got the perfect place in mind
It’s in the middle of nowhere only way to get there
You got to get a little mud on the tires
Moonlight on a duck blind
Catfish on a trot line
Sun sets about nine this time of year
We can throw a blanket down
Crickets singin’ in the background
And more stars than you can count on a night this clear
I tell you what we need to do is grab a sleepin’ bag or two
And build us a little campfire
And then with a little luck we might just get stuck
Let’s get a little mud on the tires
‘Cause it’s a good night
To be out there soakin’ up the moonlight
Stake out a little piece of shoreline
I’ve got the perfect place in mind
It’s in the middle of nowhere only way to get there
You got to get a little mud on the tires
And then with a little luck we might just get stuck
Let’s get a little mud on the tires
Meet Me In Montauk 
I like this better than some of the other more traditional Paisley songs you have featured, mostly because it’s a bit more up tempo. Country goes down easier, as least for me, when you speed it up. Still, this isn’t a song I would leave on the radio. Perhaps you will feature one of the more ambitious songs like “:Make a Mistake” tomorrow?
I don’t understand Dana’s (repeated) argument that somehow “ambitious” songs are better songs. What’s up with that? I know that a filmmaker that shows the same sort of ambition, or complexity, often is accused (by Dana) of being too intentionally “arty” (and, if you, dear blogger, are the one touting it – look out!)
Why the double standard, Dana?! I like some songs that are ambitious (though I find that an odd word to use) and some (probably far more) that are simple, but I don’t ever like the song BECAUSE it is ambitious or simple. I simply like what I like.
And I like today’s SOTD, which, I agree, beautifully captures the sentiment Paisley is exploring. And, ambitious or not, I have to say that I find this song unique. I can’t think of another song that travels this same road (however remote or worn it might be), so I appreciate that aspect of it as well.
I, too, am puzzled by the association of ambition or complexity with quality. I think they are two totally different attributes. I’ve heard wildly ambitious songs that I hate, completely simple songs that I love, and vice versa.
Would Dana fault The Beatles’ ‘If I Fell’ for being simple? I doubt it. I think it has more to do with the country genre, which he feels is less ambitious and more simple (in every sense of the word) than genres he prefers.
So only an atypical country song (i.e., an ambitious one) rises above its unworthy surroundings. A simple country song, regardless of its content, is just emblematic of a weak genre.
I loved this song the first time I heard it. Clay, you’ve mentioned Paisley’s earnestness and authenticity before. This song perfectly captures this. Whether it’s a metaphor for his career or not, I hear an honest joy in this song and watching my girls sing along to it with big grins on their faces probably reinforces that for me. That’s not complex or ambitious. It’s pretty simple.
First of all, how is “If I Fell” a simple song? I assume you must be referring to the sentiment because the structure of the music and, in particular, the harmonies/counter-melodies make it far from simple.
And therein lies perhaps part of the difference between you (all) and me. You seem to pay far more attention to, and give far more credit to, lyrics, even if they are entangled in an otherwise predictable, generic musical structure. For me, a unique, touching or sweet lyrical sentiment will only take me so far if the music doesn’t move me.
Now, as for the whole “ambitious” vs. “simple” issue–I will readily admit that I am more willing to tolerate or even like a simple, predictable musical structure in a genre (like rock, jazz or blues) that I like. Conversely, since I don’t really like traditional country music, the closer a song sounds to that predictable basic structure, the less likely I am to like the song.
I would also agree that complexity or ambition in any art form can backfire and come across as needlessly pretentious or fussy. There are certainly examples of music, art, movies, etc that I don’t like because it seemed as though the artist went out of their way to make something “different” rather than striving to make something good.
Oh, and Alex, I certainly get the idea of your kids’ love of a song elevating your impression of it. I too have had that experience many times. However, sometimes that appreciation can fade. On our recent trip, for example, when the ABC songs from They Might Be Giants came up randomly on the IPod, my reaction was to ask that they be skipped. I appreciated them, just as I appreciated the Berkner songs and a number of Disney tunes, when the kids were younger, but not so much anymore.
I think the kids’ enjoyment factor fades when you’re dealing with actual kids music (the Laurie Berkner and Disney music, for example) but when the kids like adult music, that’s less likely to happen. I certainly hit skip these days when a Berkner song pops up in the random playlist.
I wouldn’t know that ‘If I Fell’ is complex musically. It strikes me as pretty simple in structure (harmonies aside). But you’re a musician, which is another difference between how you experience songs and how the rest of us do.
That may be true about kid’s vs. adult music. Still, there are definitely songs, even now, that, like Alex, I enjoy more because of watching the kids enjoy them. One that immediately comes to mind is “Tonight Tonight.” I love singing the first few notes of the chorus to have Maddie respond with the lyrics (“whatever”…”it doesn’t matter,,,”) And then watching Maddie sing and do her hand movements to “Just don’t stop let’s keep the beat pumpin’. Keep the beat up, lets drop the beat down…”
Now, I might have thought the song was okay on its own merit, but there is no doubt that the song elevates because of the kids. So the question is whether I would still leave that song on the radio 10 years from now. I suppose if I could conjure up the image of Maddie singing and dancing to it, I probably would:)
As for simple songs, perhaps a better example would be “Imagine,” There’s a great one that succeeds with simplicity. Again, it’s a genre I like far better, sung by one of my favorites (Lennon) with a beautiful sentiment.