20 Easy Rules for Writing about Country the Way the Pros Do It!

Recent discussions regarding the respective merits of rockism versus poptimism (such as…) reminded me of the following essay by Cheryl Cline in which this former editor of Bitch and Twangin’ nails the ways that writers with a rock bias often misunderstand or condescend to country music when they write about it at all. There’s now a permanent link to this 1996 piece (as well as some other additions) at Living in Stereo’s The Reading List.

20 Easy Rules for Writing About Country Music
The Way the Pros Do It!
By CHERYL CLINE

There’s been a little bit of discussion on the Internet mailing list POSTCARD2 about how rock critics treat alternative country. To tell you truth, the way rock critics write about country, alternative or any other kind, has always grated on me. I started thinking about it, then wrote down a list, then cast it in the form of rules for people who want to try their hand at becoming the next Robert “Bob” Christgau. Not to pick on Bob, though — most rock critics appear to have these rules tattooed on their frontal lobes.
 
I know that there are some rock critics who can write wonderfully about country music. This is not about them.

(Note: Some of these rules are contradictory. This doesn’t matter one bit. Mix and match with impunity.)

1. Declare that country music deals in “nostalgia” for a “past that never was.” Fail to recognize that this “past” not only *was* but *is* for many people.
 
2. Call it “essentially conservative” music without explaining the term.
 
3. Deplore it’s imagined shortcomings when compared to Black music. (Example: the blues is life-affirming; country is fatalistic.) BE SURE to mention that country-rock is the domain of disaffected middle-class white boys.
 
4. Laud the country artists who display character traits most cherished in rock, and whose lyrical concerns hew closest to a rock sensibility.
 
5. Play up these traits in country artists you want to make over as rock icons, while glossing over any traits they might exhibit that are more prized by country. (example: play up Johnny Cash as an outlaw; play down Johnny Cash as a Bible scholar.)

6. Harp on the “dark side” of country music, saying stuff about how the twisted psyche of country artists is what makes the best country music; blithely write about the peccadillos of country artists as if they really are more nuts than rock musicians.
 
7. Treat the concerns and sensibilities prized by country (religion, tradition, family) as dysfunctional.

8. When writing about women country artists, follow these simple rules. Men writers: Write off the lyrical concerns of women country artists as girl stuff, even when they are identical to those of men. Women writers: Attempt to find subversion in even the most banal lyrics. Both men and women writers: Be
sure to mention “Stand By Your Man” somewhere in your article, preferably at the beginning.

9. Insist country music be grounded in “working class” concerns, while demonstrating your understanding of working class concerns is based on Budweiser commercials.
 
10. Treat it as an “authentic” “roots” music which rock can draw upon when the well goes dry; as a sort of naive, primitive, noble-savage kind of music and not a complex, sophisticated music in its own right.
 
11. Hold it to a standard of museum-quality authenticity and write off new experiments and new bands.
 
12. At the same time regretfully dismisses it as largely irrelevant to modern life.
 
13. Insist it come from the south to be authentic. You, however, do not have to be from the south to judge it so.
 
14. Display complete ignorance of even the existence of thriving contemporary bluegrass or old time movements. Be skeptical of the existence of longstanding, large-scale festivals not named Lollapalooza.
 
15. Ignore artists who can neither be set on the pedestal of authentic purity nor comfortably added to the rock canon.
 
16. Memorize the names Hank Williams, Merle Haggard, Gram Parsons, John Doe and Joe Ely. Liberally sprinkle references to them throughout your articles, whether the reference is appropriate or not.
 
17. Remember this rule: the country-rock band du jour is directly descended from Gram.

18. Notice country or country rock only when it starts to appeal to the “correct” demographic, that is, young people. Heaven forbid you write about music that appeals to MIDDLE AGED people. Even WORKING CLASS MIDDLE AGED people.
 
19. But don’t notice it until there’s a large base of young people who know a lot more about the music than you do.
 
20. Ruefully admit there is something to this music, a rough down-home honesty, a ragged-but-right soulfulness that draws young rock fans & musicians away from the sterile dead-end of grunge — once bright with the promise of a vital and vibrant alternative to toothless corporate rock, but now broken on the rack of
MTV. [Or words to that effect.] However, make sure you imply that people are  turning away from the true fold towards nostalgia for a past that never was.

This entry was posted on Friday, May 26th, 2006 at 3:58 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

9 Responses to “20 Easy Rules for Writing about Country the Way the Pros Do It!”

  1. Charles Says:
    May 27th, 2006 at 4:50 am

    That rules…

  2. don Says:
    May 30th, 2006 at 9:41 pm

    Hi Cheryl, I used to subscribe to Twangin! when it was a zine; you were an inspiration. But my subsequent writing (for Voice, thefreelancementalists, and charlotte.creativeloafing) probably fits some of what you’re talking about, because your zine didn’t try to pretend it didn’t know about the Velvets as well as the Mekons as well as Merle as well as Freakwater, and I don’t see what’s wrong about emphasizing the rock appeal of some country artists, long as you don’t leave out significant differences, when they *are* significant. Johnny Cash’s Bible study isn’t always apparent in his music, and Sam Phillips’ comment in Walk The Line, about his gospel rendition (at least at that audition) not going deep enough, rings true re some of his later work. (And then Johnny says, “Okay! I wrote this in the Air Force, you got something against the Air Force?” Sam: “No.” Johnny: “Well I do!” (sings “I Walk The Line.”) And the pissed-off, rocknroll-associated attitude under the surface of this song (in this audition) gets him onto Sun, and rationalizes the rock-associated tilt of this movie, which does simplfy his life, quite a bit, but as biopics go is pretty well-founded. So, I don’t think writing with rockhead ears, as I do, nec means you’re wrong.

  3. livingin Says:
    May 31st, 2006 at 2:33 pm

    Hey Don: Actually this is David Cantrwell here at Living in Stereo. I’d just posted Cheryl’s piece because I admired it. So I can’t respond for her, nor have I seen Walk the Line, but…

    Cash’s Christianity is essential to an understanding his work. He long said that his big reason for leaving Sun was that Phillips wouldn’t let him record a gospel album. At Columbia, he made certain he was always cutting some gospel sides; in fact, I can’t think of a Cash album in the sixties and seventies, the period that includes most of his best work, that didn’t include at least one gospel cut. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn he’d never cut a gosepl-less album, and, of course, live he did even more gospel. Does leaving all of this out of the Cash story, or even just downplaying its significance, count as wrong? Well, it’s at least innacurate, incomplete, caricatured…

  4. don Says:
    June 1st, 2006 at 12:49 am

    But it’s not all that *specifically* apparent in every song (not to me, and I’m a preacher’s son, readin’ his Bible for many a year), and it’s not the essence of his own sensiblity, though it is a crucial part (and Sam was right, in that audition, as depicted in the movie, based on Cash’s autobiographical recounting)to sense that Cash wasn’t really singing his own song, not quite yet)(he also said he couldn’t sell gospel, so it wasn’t just Sam looking deep, but maybe he just didn’t think Cash was that good a gospel singer, was the implication) But I know what she means about some rock-based writers overdoing it, like with the tabloid reductionism.(Not that some country-only writers don’t do that too).

  5. livingin Says:
    June 1st, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Thanks for writing back, Don. You’re right . And I agree that the gospel side isn’t the single essence of the Cash sensibility, but I do think the ongoing tension between the gospel side and the darker, more worldly side is very much something like his essence as an artist. (This reminds me that I need to add some of my Cash pieces to our Heroes section…)

    But amen to your comment on tabloid reductionism, Don. I think that Cash series that came out awhile back, the one with a volume each devoted to Love, God and Death is one example of what you’re talking about–making death into one third of the Cash equation is tabloid reductionsim of the highest order.

  6. don Says:
    June 1st, 2006 at 4:21 pm

    Looking fwd to your book on countrypolitan, when’s it coming out?

  7. Roy Says:
    June 1st, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    Yesterday, I put on The Rambler, one of the weirdest and best Cash albums from the ’60s. Have you guys heard that? A concept record about a road trip between a fisherman and a “rambler”, with skits in between songs. There’s one moment where the fisherman demands the rambler turn off the preacher on the radio. “I bet he makes a lot of money!” the fisherman says. But the rambler won’t have any of that, and still wants to believe in salvation, though the rest of the album is very bleak and secular. It’s a perfect and really complex fusion of the tension David is talking about.

  8. livingin Says:
    June 1st, 2006 at 5:05 pm

    Ooops. I meant Love, God and MURDER, not Death, in my comment above…

    When’s my book coming out? Well, that’s a good question. It won’t be until I write it, that’s for sure, so quite awhile I’m afraid. But it’s good to know, Don, that there’ll be someone interested in reading it when it does. Thanks.

  9. Ian Miller Says:
    June 13th, 2008 at 11:32 pm

    I found this linked from Derrick Bostrom’s blog, and (even if it was written 12 years ago) I feel exactly the same way about the state of how the “rock bias” fosters condescension towards country/hillbilly/what-have-you. I think that it is possible to love something purely on it’s own merits, even if it’s sentiment makes you uncomfortable (OKIE FROM MUSKOGEE is one thing. but THE FIGHTIN’ SIDE OF ME is something a bit more serious), and it seems that a lot of rock fans have great difficulty with that, having to place it in the comfort zone of “irony” to justify their enjoyment. Not to get all pedantic or anything, but country music’s emotional directness is one of it’s greatest strengths, even if one’s reaction to that directness is being troubled by it’s content.

    Anyway, thanks!

Leave a Reply