“It’s weird to me that the glorification of ignorance is finally (maybe) about to fail in U.S. politics, but it’s still a good look in blue-state coastal elitist music journalism,” Marc Hogan writes, referring to Ann Powers’ article about what she calls “flyover rock,” and what others have called “red-state rock.” Powers argues that the genre–which includes bands like Nickelback, Hinder, and Daughtry–is unfairly dismissed by what is variously called “the coasts,” “the media,” and “elitists.” Her musical analysis highlights the sound’s eclecticism and tries to relate their lyrical focus to a particular way of life–hedonism as a release, multi-generational entertainment, and “openly emotional,” which probably sounds more convincing when the example at hand isn’t Hinder’s “Lips of an Angel.” Powers wasn’t trying to be condescending, but Hogan’s case is helped by her assertion that Sarah Palin gave her baby the middle name Van as a Van Halen tribute–something even a Van Halen fansite recognizes as a joke. So is it ultimately more condescending to dismiss Nickelback because they don’t sound like the music you like, or to try to appreciate them because that’s what “real people” listen to?
That’s a pretty evergreen question for critics, so let’s see if we can’t dance around it a bit. Ex-ska punker and current Hinder/Daughtry/et al songwriter Brian Howes complains that “the media are looking for the next cool thing, whereas Middle Americans just want good music that makes ‘em feel good.” But this is a little disingenuous. There have always been rock bands dismissed by critics that proved immensely popular with the public both on and between the coasts: Kiss, Led Zeppelin (Howes’ argument is one that runs through Zep bio Hammer of the Gods), and even metal itself all fall into this pattern. What’s new here is the other side of the equation. Powers writes: “Since the days when former art-school kids the Rolling Stones declared themselves exiled on Main Street, populism has served as a normalizing counterpoint to rock’s freaky bohemian tendencies.” And that was great when freaky bohemian bands were selling lots of records and getting lots of attention. As Howes points out, however, “The people in Middle America seem to still buy records.” The other folks–consumers of what we might as well call “blue-state rock” to be consistent–don’t so much. If all we care about is continuing to hear music that sounds like it’s trying to be freaky and bohemian, that’s fine. But if we care about music as a cultural force, it’s a problem.
Howes doesn’t actually name a band in his critique of the media’s focus on the “next big thing,” because who would he name right now? (TV on the Radio? Vampire Weekend?) Kiss v. Pink Floyd seems like a real red state/blue state kind of taste division since the sides were relatively equal in numbers. But blue-state rock is a third party right now, and it suffers from the same problem all third parties do: the media won’t cover it, and no one wants to get too invested in it because it doesn’t seem viable. Lots of new bands feature the kind of biographical or thematic hooks that the non-music press could grab onto, but it’s very hard to justify covering bands that are selling so few records.
Though the rhetoric of rock is that it’s something that exists at the margins of society, it’s always drawn a lot of its power from its importance. And playing music that only a few thousand people seem to care about doesn’t, by extension, seem important. Third parties may come up with some great proposals, but without the votes–read here as album sales–there’s no chance that they’ll have any influence on the collective enterprise at hand. As long as Hinder’s selling and your particular indie fave isn’t, more people outside the music-writing bubble will think “rock” sounds like Hinder.
‘Flyover rock’ rocks the heartland [LA Times]
“It’s lifestyle music for an amorphous, unclear, undefined life,” said Chuck Klosterman, whose writing about hard rock and Middle America has made him a bestselling author. “I think that guy [Chad Kroeger of Nickelback], in a sense, is a pure kind of songwriter. It’s not that you hear these songs and you’re getting an understanding of what his life is right now or that he’s responding to culture or that his music is a manifestation of this time in history. He writes songs in a vacuum about what rock songs are about — nostalgia for the very recent past, relationships that are meaningful but difficult, having a good time.”
WUH? Seems to me at the very least “Photograph” and “Rock Star” and “If Everyone Cared” all have the kinds of lyrical subjects Klosterman thinks they Nickelback avoids.
I feel like at a certain point we have to let bad music be bad music. To keep the political analogy going, Nickelback and Hinder aren’t Barack Obama or even John McCain. They’re Joe the Plumber. Like Hogan, I bristle whenever I hear anyone start talking about “the Real America” since that usually doesn’t include me. The relevant passage:
“The flyover fantasy world is a place where mothers bring their daughters to arena shows, where hearty partying is seen as a healthy release after a hard week’s work and where rockers view themselves as traditionalists, just like sports fans, churchgoers and patriots.”
Its the Karl Rove view of the world extended to rock and roll. If you aren’t interested in partying and church and the flag then you aren’t a real music fan. I resent this notion of “realness” as defined by red-state, hegemonic (sorry for the media theory term) values. To quote flyover rock’s newest groupie: Thanks, but no thanks.
At the same time, just because I don’t like it, doesn’t mean everyone else has to hate it too. I’m kind of okay with “the masses” listening to Nickelback and Hinder as long as I can find the stuff I like. To answer your question, Mike, I find it much more condescending to to talk yourself into liking Nickelback just to seem like a regular guy (or gal) than to simply like what you like, especially since talking yourself into liking Nickelback seems to require so much more intellectual effort than what they put into their music.
@Mike Barthel: OK, but what kinds of media coverage are you talking about? USA Today features? Entertainment Tonight profiles? Or just your odd rock article tucked away in the entertainment section of the LA Times? I’m guessing the issue there is lack of music coverage, in general, rather than an undue focus on “the hits.”
@dippinkind:
Totally agree that bands like Hinder, Nickelback, Alter Bridge et al. don’t “rock” the way ’70s Aerosmith or Ted Nugent or Van Halen rocked. The only one that comes close is Buckcherry, but they write too many ballads for my taste. Don’t even get me started on fucking Staind.
I’m constantly thinking about how much of this stuff to cover in Metal Edge. I don’t have to worry about Nickelback; they’re in a position of power where they basically turn down almost every interview request anyway, so screw ‘em. But I’ve run stories on Alter Bridge, Staind and Buckcherry in the last year, and got pitched really hard on Hinder.
I really don’t understand the blog guy’s objection, or even yours Mike. It’s a decent article that probably takes too many detours into boring shit, but her basic points are valid. She’s trying to explain why names like Hinder and Nickelback, which, were you to read any mainstream rock publication, you’d be forgiving for thinking were four letter words, are are still the major players in the other media, i.e. radio and television.
I don’t think it’s condescending to say that flyover rock (seriously, is this a real label or did she make it up?) is “openly emotional” or however you want to put it. If music is about effectively communicating emotions, unsubtle butt rock is just as valid a medium as reggae-infused indie rock or cathartic post-emoviolence. I thought the essential point of the article is that people consume music in different ways and, for a lot of middle Americans it seems, that involves consuming it on a more superficial level.
Not like Vampire Weekend will ever be particularly deep or anything, but you get my jib.
Whenever I start to read articles trying to explain “buttrock” “red-state” “flyover” bands and their audiences, and how they are different from the “bloggy” “indie” “coastal” “hipster” bands, and what it all means, my mind starts to drift. Specifically, it drifts to Drive-By Truckers, and I start to wonder why/how they aren’t the biggest band in the country. They seem to be a band that should straddle both sides of the red/blue state mentalities.
@Lax Danja House: oh, I think it was a fine enough article, and I think most of the post is playing off issues it legitimately raised. I think Marc raises a legitimate point, though. That it suggests to you that their consumption is more superficial is probably a problem; maybe a better take (though a harder one to get into an article in a major daily paper) is to try and understand how those bands’ embrace of occasional hedonism and family togetherness can be pleasing no matter whether or not you own a pickup truck, and how this sort of anti-rebelliousness is a challenge to rock’s usual self-image. If it’s just shitty music, then haha look at those hicks who like Daughtry, you know?
Just as classic-rock-reared boomers who listened to The Eagles started buying new country records instead of Wilco albums, the Hinderbacks of the world are being propped up by the millions of Nevermind purchasers who didn’t go seek out Daniel Johnston records on Kurt’s recommendation. Really, “flyover rock” is just new country for people who came of age during the ’90s alt-rock boom — it’s built upon the same combination of steel-toe boat ruggedness and arena pyro bombast. Chris Gaines was way more ahead of his time than any of us really knew.
erm, that’s steel-toe “boot”
@unperson: agreed on Buckcherry! not that i’ve actually heard anything they’ve done since their first album, but assuming they still sound the same, i count them as a rock’n'roll band (maybe it’s the “n’roll” part that i’m really looking for in my rockin…)
@dippinkind: Exactly, it’s exceptionally dumb pop music draped in a simulacra of “rock” that’s been calculated for demographic appeal, not unique expression. However, I don’t hate those fucking bands because of said appeal; I hate them because they insult me as a listener and as a fan. Musically, lyrically, and intellectually.
@rogerworkman: Co-signed.
@drinkypuss:
First off, as a huge DBT fan, I’m clearly in agreement with you - The Cooley/Hood songwriting split really does cover all the bases with respect to Red State / Blue State mindsets, and I think the dichotomy between the two styles really gives some insight as to why Creed/Nickelback/Etc. are so popular in what some of my friends jokingly call “Jesusland.”
Patterson Hood writes songs that, beyond hewing towards populist/progressive themes, tend to get fairly introspective and, for lack of a better word, intellectual. Mike Cooley, on the other hand, tends to take a more pragmatic view of life. The best illustration of this comes on Decoration Day, where both write about a friend’s recent suicide in admittedly different ways - Pin Hits the Shell by Cooley, and Do It To Yourself by Hood.
That philosophical split in how the two songwriters approach the same subject sums up what seems to be the big difference between Blue State and Red State tastes in rock. In the Blue States (and this is from someone born in the Red States, educated and currently living in Blue States), popular bands like TV On The Radio get plenty of credit because they have a form that fits with the preferences of the area - it’s a plus in Blue States to be intellectual/grad student-y/stridently liberal/overly philosophical. They don’t really “rock out,” so much as they approach the intellectually-held platonic ideal of un-self-consciously rocking out. For all its highs and lows, Desperate Youth, Bloodthirsty Babes comes across as contrived and artificial, something meticulously plotted out. I use TV On The Radio as a stand-in, but I think the same could be said for almost any band popularized in Spin - name one that doesn’t owe a debt to art-rock acts such as Can or Wire or that ilk. You start out with a musical framework that began as a stance outside the AOR mainstream, you’re not going to get something with massive appeal beyond critical respect.
Conversely, Hinder et al stick with a simple rock template - 2 guitars, frontman, drummer, bassist. They don’t get experimental and try and incorporate turntablists, samplers, free jazz, etc. In other words, it’s anti-art rock. Take AOR radio in its heyday of the 70’s. Skip over Punk, Post-Punk, Art-Rock, Krautrock, Disco, Hip-Hop and all those other art-school supported movements that took place from 1977 through 1994. Add a dash of mid-90s PRS-Guitars-meets-Mesa-Boogie-Amps-at-Guitar-Center production, and lo and behold, Red State AOR. It’s simple, doesn’t require a degree in comp lit to understand the lyrics, and it’s easily approachable. Why does this resonate with Red State folk? Because, frankly, Red State folk have a different set of priorities. Don’t laugh - “Git ‘r done” isn’t just a comedian’s catchphrase. Red State rock, along with mainstream country music, have a visceral appeal.
Which is kind of the real insight from all this - this is America. Don’t overthink it.
@stooberman:
Shorter Version of above: What You Just Said.
@Mike Barthel: I don’t mean superficial in a bad way- it’s probably a bad word to explain what I’m trying to say- just that the appeal of rock n’ roll, in general, lies in how immediate it is and how it takes a very active approach to stirring your emotions. But music is no less meaningful and intellectually stimulating simply because there are less layers to strip off; it’s just a more superficial presentation.
I have probably over-analysed rock music at this point.
This is true of revolutionary rock music like Elvis and the Stones, it’s true of closed-minded and reactionary rock music like all those bands that talk about bringing “real rock” back, and it’s true of very, very, very fucking stupid rock music like the Sex Pistols.
On a more basic level, you could say that there are obvious links between rock and country’s “outlaw” mystique and the victimisation complex that certain sections of conservative America have been hawking for the past decade.
Question:
Anyone think the severe decline in people buying music-focused print publications is because they love to cover blog/indie/whatever bands that only a small audience seems to care about (Vampire Weekend, MGMT, Hold Steady, etc.)? To sum up, print publications want to still see big numbers but cover “cool” bands and it’s hard to do that with the increasingly fragmented tastes. Do most people really want to plunk down $4 to read an article on Girl Talk or Animal Collective?
Are the Blue States as culturally monolithic as they assume the Red’s to be? Because out here, Hinder is also something that Other People inexplicably listen to. We just assume that’s some sort of sound picked up from the coast. Those major labels sure as hell don’t come out here looking for new bands.
Can’t we just say they all suck and leave it at that? I mean, I’m a East Coast elitist, but I always disliked the Strokes, too.
@K-Rex: No, they’re not, which is why the whole Blue State/Red State divide was never a good generalization in the first place.
I mean, yeah, Hinder is something Other People listen to here as well, but I also know only one person who likes MGMT (I mean, I guess “Time to Pretend” is ok, but that’ it), and absolutely no one off the internet who listens to TV on the Radio or Vampire Weekend.
(And there’s always people who listen to plenty of music without ever listening to any kind of rock.)
@stooberman: I think you’ve hit the nail on the head.
@spankyjoe: Um, as an intellectualizin’ blue state elitist, I’d just like to point out that Wire is partly great because the riff from “Ex Lion Tamer” gets me the fuck off. Also, the application of esoteric fine art principles to dionysian aspects of punk. Great Rock usually balances a couple of different equations at once.
@spankyjoe: I didn’t even think about breaking down the red/blue thing to the songwriter’s themselves, which was insightful. How about Jason Isbell bridging the divide between the two? Insightful self-awareness that Hood usually offers combined with the authentic sounds, melodies, and themes of Isbell?
Anyway, they are a funny band to use as a prism through which was can view this debate. And i can’t wait to see them for a first and second time here in NYC this week, just can’t wait.
@drinkypuss: er, themes of Cooley.
@K-Rex: Of course not. I live in a blue area of Missouri, mostly a red state, and Nickelback is no more popular here than in Brooklyn. But go to red areas of blue states - for instance, Yakima, WA or Sayreville, NJ - and you start to realize that Hinder’s not just for the culturally deprived midwest or southern states.
Defaming entire regions of the country for the musical sins of a few is just as stupid - and easily refuted - as pretending some little college town is “the next Seattle” because three bands have emerged from there.
Newsflash: “critics” didn’t hate Led Zeppelin. Rolling Stone didn’t, but many of the rest did.
sorry, that was unclear: RS didn’t like them, but many others did.
The article brought up the idea that the music was confined to a particular geographical area, which yeah of course it’s not. But it does describe well a particular taste grouping, and that’s generally opposed to another taste grouping. So don’t get take that terminology too literally, at least as it’s used here.
@Michaelangelo Matos: fair enough. Point is that the argument (the coasts/the media/the elites/critics/whoever sneer at supposedly “dumb” rock bands the rest of the country likes) is a recurring theme in Hammer of the Gods, and according to that book at least, Zep did feel disrespected by “the critics,” whatever they meant by that. Maybe they only cared about RS? I don’t have the book here so I can’t tell you specifics.
@RaptorAvatar:
I’m not saying blue state folk don’t rock out - there’s just a greater self-awareness of doing so. Using your terms (and noting belatedly that one-size-fits-all-generalizing is always inaccurate), my contention would be that Hinder et al don’t “apply esoteric fine art principles to the dionysian aspects of punk.” I’m just not good at that whole brevity thing, hence the giant block of prose. Both you and Stooberman said it much better than I did.
@drinkypuss:
Faced with the option of seeing DBT vs. a rescheduled NIN show this weekend, I’ve opted to go with NIN specifically because of supporting musicians. The band just isn’t the same without Isbell, bless John Neff’s heart. Conversely, this will be one of the last chances to see NIN with both Josh Freese AND Robin Finck.
@spankyjoe: I was at that very Hold Steady/DBT show in a maybe 1/2 full Ryman. Earlier in the day, I had pretty much the same conversation with my co-workers (and Daughtry/Finger Eleven, etc. came up) because they had never even heard of either band, mainly due to zero radio play.
@BreakfastBourbon: You raise a good point which, I think, hasn’t yet been discussed here. I’m not so sure that the fans of Hinder, Nickelback, et al. “naturally” gravitate toward and prefer that type of music. Rather, for whatever reason, this music is what the largely coastal types within the major label/Clearchannel nexus think Middle America likes and wants to hear, and so it gets marketed to death and played on all the big rock stations. So, yeah, of course it’s going to sell and become popular, because it’s getting massive exposure.
I do think that to some extent the heavier, more visceral hard rock music has a broader appeal, but I don’t think it necessarily has to be as intellectually vacant as Hinder’s brand of butt-rock.
Great post, Mike.
“But blue-state rock is a third party right now, and it suffers from the same problem all third parties do: the media won’t cover it, and no one wants to get too invested in it because it doesn’t seem viable. “
Really? I hate to be reductionist, but just pulling from the primary examples in the post, Vampire Weekend and TV On the Radio have been on the cover of Spin, gotten favorable (and sometimes, ecstatic) reviews in both Spin and Rolling Stone, and made both publications’ yearly top albums and/or singles lists.
I’d be shocked if Hinder or Nickelback has gotten anything more than a perfunctory, “we have to cover it because people are listening to it” Q&A from either publication.
i love rock and roll (in addition to all sortsa other genres) whether or not it’s hip or mainstream or whatever, ac/dc, van halen, skynyrd, cheap trick, springsteen, drive-by truckers, zz top, bachman-turner overdrive, hold steady, tom petty, etc. etc. etc…. the problem i have with these daughtry, nickleback, hinder folks is that they don’t entirely sound like “real” rock and roll to me, it’s a compressed, post-post grunge mass of dullness to my ears. i think lumping it together with more rockin classic rock is sort of like if someone in 1988 had told me “you like Guns’n'Roses? then you’re gonna love Winger!”
To add to the above, I feel like, if anything, bands like Hinder and Nickelback are under-covered. Do you know anything about the members of Nickelback besides Chad Kroeger’s name? In contrast, don’t you feel like Vampire Weekend’s exploits at Columbia have been covered to the extent that you may have read who Ezra Koenig’s comparative lit professor was during his junior year?
@Audif Jackson Winters III: please see the “outside the music-writing bubble” caveat. This is not talking about music fans, who will always be music fans. This is talking about the larger music-listening public who can make a minor band into a major band. They don’t really care who’s on the cover of Spin.
It’s worth noting that Hinder were never popular in the Oklahoma City rock scene, which can pretty much be divided into a Flaming Lips camp, an All-American Rejects camp, and a screamo camp. Hinder made their name booking their own shows in halls and inviting lots of frat brothers to them, as well as going out to smaller towns and playing there.
And I think the Kiss/Pink Floyd comparison is underselling things. It’s more like Pink Floyd fans vs. fans of Foghat or BTO, really unpopular workmanlike blue-collar ’70s bands.