I probably never would have considered including a ‘Country Plus’ category in my musical genome before I discovered Brad Paisley.
The other artists I’m including in that group would still have shown up, but I would have lumped them under ‘singer-songwriters’ or shoehorned them into ‘folk.’ I never would have considered embracing the ‘country’ label.
I have Slate.com’s Jody Rosen to thank, as it was her laudatory comments about Paisley’s 2009 American Saturday Night album that first brought him to my attention. Her praise came as part of Slate’s annual “Year in Music” e-mail exchange, in which a handful of critics write back and forth on a public forum about the previous, well, year in music (Slate does the same things for movies).
Rosen is clearly a woman of taste (read: she likes a lot of the same things I do) and seeing her name this country album as one of the best of the year surprised me. It was nestled in among alternative, rock and rap records, not part of some niche conversation. If this sophisticated music critic could embrace a country album so whole-heartedly, shouldn’t I give it a chance?
So I did, and the rest of the credit goes to Paisley. American Saturday Night happens to be the best thing he’s ever done, so it was a wonderful entry point, but I quickly devoured everything else he’d recorded and was equally smitten.
And suddenly, my love of Lyle Lovett and Tift Merritt and others I’ll feature in coming weeks didn’t have to be explained away. They, like Brad Paisley, are country artists I happen to like a whole lot.
Paisley dabbles in a lot of different sounds, but I can’t see fitting him into any of my other categories. He’s ‘Country Plus’ all the way, and in his case the ‘plus’ is just that he does traditional country music — in the modern era — better than anybody else.
The problem is I can’t afford ’em
But last year I went and got myself a whole box
And just to be safe I insured ’em
I took out a policy against fire and theft
And then I hurried on home
With a fifty-cent lighter I sat on my back steps
And I smoked ’em one by one
Two weeks later I went to see that insurance man
And I handed in my claim
With a straight face I told him that through a series of small fires
They’d all gone up in flames
They reviewed my case and they had no choice
But to pay me for what I’d done
And I took that check and bought a whole new box
And I smoked ’em one by one
Two weeks later this detective shows up
Tells me that company’s pressin’ charges
One speedy trial later they locked me up
On twenty-four separate counts of arson
And now I sit and I stare at a blank brick wall
Lookin’ back on what I’ve done
To pass the time I’ve got some ten-cent cigars
And I smoke ’em one by one
Yeah, I smoke ’em one by one
Meet Me In Montauk 
I have heard some things from paisley that stray into the jazz, blues branches that I suppose might give him the plus designation. However, as you have said, he is mostly country and, while this song may be a fine example of country at its best, it does nothing for me. (shocker, I know!)
Oh, and, by the way, your recognition of Paisley as being pure country (with the plus being, at best, quality of the songs) really underscores Amy’s point that this genome project isn’t getting to any meaningful analysis of your tastes. If the songs you like from Paisley are pure country (even if you also like some of the roads he may have gone down toward bluegrass, jazz or blues), then why is it that you eschew 98% of the pure country music out there, including a number of artists who have been similarly considered the greats of that genre or otherwise critically acclaimed?
Again, it goes to Amy’s point that it’s not about the genome or genre (whether it be country plus, folk, piano based, whatever), but about an artist with really good song writing chops in whatever genome or genre they write in. For those artists that you feel have that level of quality, you are willing to embrace the genre they inhabit and follow them down almost, if not any, musical path they take.
This is, of course, similar to our oft discussed movie tastes debate—where I will recognize a quality western movie, but not really like or love it because it simply diverges from my personal taste, you will embrace that western if it is done with great quality and, in particular, by people you like (such as the Coen Brothers). It would be similarly pointless for you to start categorizing movie genomes/genres with the inclusion of westerns (or even western plus) simply so you could rationalize why you like “No Country for Old Men.”
I appreciate Dana’s film analogy, as that makes a lot of sense to me. I’ve been intrigued by your project, so I’ve spent some time off this blog thinking and talking about it, which is why Dana can reference my various “points.” 🙂 What I’ve come to believe is that the only way to get to any sound conclusions is to investigate those things you don’t like. If you like folk, why don’t you like James Taylor? If you like great women songwriters, why don’t you like Joni Mitchell? If you like Brad Paisley, why don’t you like Garth Brooks? Those distinctions will likely bring you some meaningful insight.
On a side note, I greatly appreciate having been introduced to Brad Paisley by you. I love many of his songs, whatever their label.
Certainly there will be exceptions, and Paisley might be one. And if he was the only “country” artist I like, I could dismiss him as such. But I do see strains of country in a lot of the music I like, which is why I’ve included it in the genome.
Amy, I think that will be the next step. But your examples are broader than this project. I don’t like folk or women songwriters… but maybe I like piano-based songs with a folk influence and a melancholy air. If I find an act like that I don’t like, then I’ll need to figure out why.