I’m
going to do something today that I haven’t done for a long while—I’m going to
purchase a compact disc. I used to buy music all the time, in various forms—CD’s,
cassettes, records, even 8-tracks (thanks to the 1983 Cadillac Coup de Ville I
owned as a teenager)—but with the ability to obtain free music via the library and
the Internet, paying for it just seems like a waste of money these days. So,
what makes today different? Why have I decided to throw away my hard-earned
money on a round piece of plastic that holds about a dozen songs?
It seems that every decade a
recording artist emerges that redefines the way we think about popular music. Elvis
started it all in the 1950’s; then, of course, we had The Beatles in the 60’s;
Led Zeppelin in the 70’s (or was it the Bee Gees—I guess that’s the one decade
that could be debated); and Michael Jackson in the 80’s. The 1990’s may have
seen the emergence of grunge-rock and the ever-growing popularity of hip-hop
and rap music, but it was one man from a much unexpected genre that would take
the music world by storm. That genre was country, and that man—a chubby,
balding guitar player from Oklahoma—was Garth Brooks.
Before Garth Brooks, country music
was something folks from the country listened to. Because of Garth Brooks, country
music has become an important part of our popular culture. In this day and age,
country albums often top the Billboard 200, but before Garth Brooks, that had
never been done before. By fusing country and western with rock and roll, along
with electrifying audiences with high-energy live performances, Garth
singlehandedly turned the country music world upside down. He wasn’t afraid to
tackle topics that had previously been taboo in the genre—domestic abuse,
racial divide, adultery and even homosexuality—while still remaining true to
tradition, with sentimental ballads and hard-drinking anthems. And nobody was a
better salesman. Though many country acts have had more hit singles—George Strait,
Tim McGraw, and Toby Keith, to name a few—nobody has come close to selling more
albums. Five of Garth’s albums have sold over ten million copies, while his Double Live album has surpassed the
twenty million mark. Yes, that’s right—twenty million hard copies. Even his
crossover Chris Gaines experiment
sold two million copies, which was considered a disappointment. (How many other
artists could call two million copies a “disappointment?”) With over 134
million total albums sold, only The Beatles and Elvis have sold more. Pretty
good company, if you ask me. So, what does a musical phenom do when he’s at the
top of his game; when he’s sold more records than Michael Jackson; when he’s
redefined an entire genre of music? What did Garth Brooks do? He quit—no more
touring, no more albums—and as fast as he exploded on to the music scene, he
was gone.
Flash forward thirteen years, to
today—the day Garth Brooks releases his first studio album since 2001. I woke
up excited this morning—excited over a record-album (I haven’t felt this way
since Guns N’ Roses released Chinese
Democracy in 2008, and for very similar reasons). As a child of the 90’s—one
who grew up in a rural setting, nonetheless—Garth Brooks was my Elvis Presley, my Beatles, my Michael
Jackson. I don’t even remember caring much about music before I heard “Friends in
Low Places,” and “The Thunder Rolls.” My bedroom was a legitimate Garth Brooks
shrine. I knew every song by heart. But then I grew up, and Garth disappeared, not
only from my own life, but from just about everyone else’s too. Every once in
awhile he would play a show, or release a single, but the unstoppable force
that we had all been mesmerized by, was gone. But deep down, I believe that all
of his fans knew that he would someday return; that his “retirement” wouldn’t
last forever. After all, how does an artist just stop making art? But the
question remains: after thirteen years, can a musician simply come back in
stride? Will his fans welcome him with open arms? Can he fulfill over a decade’s
worth of expectations? But most importantly, will his music still be great? Because,
after all, it’s always been about the music. Or—like Guns N’ Roses in 2008—can he
only disappoint? We’re about to find out.
Okay. I just went down to the store and bought the
album. First thing first: I’ve seen Garth on TV lately and he doesn’t look
anything like the man on the cover, unless he lost thirty pounds for the photo
shoot and then immediately gained it back. But then again, it was never Garth’s
good looks that brought in the adoring fans—it always came down to the music.
And, after a first listen, I have to say, Man
Against Machine does not disappoint. Unfortunately, unlike most of his
previous albums, this one might be missing a mega-hit single, but on the other
hand, unlike most of his previous albums, there are no duds. If anything, it’s
a refreshing throwback to the kind of country music that made me a fan of the
genre in the first place (unlike most of that binge-drinking garbage-pop that
masquerades as “country” on the airwaves today. Oh my God! Am I getting old?).
It might not be Garth’s best album, and it probably won’t sell 20 million
copies, but it’s far from the worse thing he’s ever put out, and more than
anything, after thirteen years, it’s just great to hear that unmistakable voice
once again. Welcome back!
No comments:
Post a Comment