Can Country Music Adapt Following Its Racial Reckoning?

The genre’s two biggest stars — who also happen to be two of the nation’s best-selling artists —couldn’t be more different: one, an ebullient gay Black man; the other, a loutish-behaving, drunk white bigot. Lil Nas X has upward of 20 million singles sold of his genre-blending song “Old Town Road,” while Morgan Wallen’s double album, Dangerous, is preparing to reach two consecutive months atop Billboard’s Hot 200 chart. This comes after Wallen uttered the word “ni**er” out loud while being filmed on the first day of 2021’s Black History Month. Despite the 27-year old Sneedville, Tennessee native being “indefinitely suspended” by his label Big Loud Records, having his videos removed from CMT, and songs unlisted from radio playlists as a result of saying the racial slur, Wallen’s album sales have skyrocketed.

The proposition of consistent Black stardom in this once mostly lily-white musical space is more apparent than ever, with Lil Nas X opening the floodgates to artists like Blanco Brown, Breland, and RMR. But there are also Black country artists who are making music more traditional to the genre: Jimmie Allen and Kane Brown, who both made history in 2018 debuting at No. 1 on Billboard’s Country Airplay chart and Billboard’s 200 chart, respectively; groundbreaking 2021 Black Best Female Solo Country Artist and Grammy-nominated vocalist Mickey Guyton; and Billboard-charting vocalist and Color Me Country podcast host Rissi Palmer. Thus, it would appear that country music — to reflect its rising stars and preventatively save itself — must adapt to keep from potentially tearing itself asunder. But can it?

For nearly a century, country music has predominantly been the domain of slow-drawling, God-fearing white men, with Wallen being presented within a stereotypical cultural landscape that venerates the genre’s roots in hillbilly Appalachia and the Antebellum South. Enter Lil Nas X. The success of “Old Town Road” disrupted country: as Billboard removed the track from its country charts, some critics felt it was indicative of systemic problems still prevalent in the genre, segregating Black artists from another genre that they invented and policing what it does — and doesn’t — sound like. Others used the moment to educate people on country’s rich Black history and, by extension, Black people’s contributions to the cowboy culture associated with the genre.

Until very recently, country music has been able to count its star Black mainstream stars on less than one hand. The ’70s featured Charley Pride, the iconic hitmaker behind the classic “Kiss An Angel Good Mornin,’” who passed from COVID-19 in 2020, and The Pointer Sisters, whose 1974 hit single “Fairytale” led to them winning the award for Best Country Performance by a Duo or Group at that year’s Grammys, as well as a nomination for Best Country Song. In the early ’90s, R&B crossover artist Aaron Neville forayed into country music with 1993’s The Grand Tour, which included a cover of George Jones’ classic of the same name, and resulted in Neville being nominated for Best Country Male Singer that same year. In the modern era, one-time Hootie and the Blowfish lead singer Darius Rucker has recently achieved ten number-one hits on Billboard’s Hot Country Songs chart.

Despite this lineage, as well as the contemporary Black country 0artists a part of its evolution, the general public still views Black participation in country dismissively, a misinformed mindset based on the music genre primarily being catered to white people.

“My 82-year-old mother who participated in the civil rights movement saw Charley Pride on the 2020 CMAs and referred to him as ‘an old coon.’ I was stunned,” William Bruce West, a part-time music and culture blogger and lifelong country music fan, said. “Charley Pride opened doors and is the ‘Jackie Robinson of country music.’ But, according to my mother, not everyone has the same perspective on his career.”

Many Black Americans feel exhaustion about how race in America impacts how they have historically thought about country music. The intersection of race, country’s roots in a South imperiled by anti-Black prejudice, and many Black people’s desire to live lives within, but without the direct impact of what has been deemed white culture-defined spaces, dooms this relationship. And how Wallen’s discriminatory behavior is being handled reflects how fraught this relationship still is. On one end, the immediacy in which he was suspended by his label and his music unlisted is reassuring. On the other, there are fans that could care less about his transgression, and fail to see — or simply don’t care — how it’s indicative of deeply-rooted problems in country.

“Systemic issues are complex and require transformational work,” Gina Waters Miller, a music industry veteran and the Vice President and General Manager of Entertainment One Nashville, said in an email. “This is not about what will be quick and easy, but what is likely uncomfortable yet sustainable.”

Miller, who’s also a member of the NAACP and the Vice President of Nashville Music Equality — a community of music industry professionals in the Music City “committed to minimizing the equality gap that exists within the music industry in Nashville” — hopes that the disdain and swiftness that came about for Wallen is maintained by those who claim “they support diversity, inclusion, equity, equality, and justice,” while adding the importance of advocating for Black country artists.

“Leaders need to examine themselves, their workplaces, and their relationships,” she said. “Intentionality around being advocates, allies, sponsors, and mentors for artists, creatives, musicians, executives who identify as BIPOC is key.”

Where Wallen is indicative of the more overt racial issues that still persist in country, country music group Lady A (formerly known as Lady Antebellum) is speaks something more covert but just as harmful — whether they realize it or not.

On June 12, 2020, amid the George Floyd protests, Lady Antebellum shortened its name to “Lady A.”

“When we set out together almost 14 years ago, we named our band after the Southern ‘antebellum’-style home where we took our first photos,” the group said in a statement. “As musicians, it reminded us of all the music born in the South that influenced us … Southern rock, blues, R&B, gospel, and of course country. But we are regretful and embarrassed to say that we did not take into account the associations that weigh down this word referring to the period of history before the Civil War, which includes slavery.”

With the name change also came a donation to the Equal Justice Initiative, and a commitment “to examining our individual and collective impact and making the necessary changes to practice antiracism.” However, in changing their name, Lady A had taken up a name already being used by someone.

Anita White has traveled the world as “Lady A” for 25 years, the 62-year-old Seattle-based blues and jazz vocalist who has released multiple albums under the name. Shortly after the band changed its name, Rolling Stone spoke with White, who expressed frustration that they hadn’t reached out to her before making a decision. The band ended up connecting with White and, based on posts they were sharing on their respective social media accounts, were making progress. But it didn’t last long — shortly after the private conversations they had, White told Newsday that she didn’t trust the group. The band then shared a statement saying progress between them and White had faltered because representatives for the singer “demanded a $10 million payment.” By early July, the group had announced it had filed a lawsuit against White seeking no monetary damages, but wanting the court to affirm “a trademark we have held for many years.”

In an interview with Vulture, White explained in detail how the name change had affected her own livelihood as a musician — from making her harder to find on search results to even affecting her ability to upload her music for distribution. She also shared that the band’s initial contract to her “had no substance,” stating that her and the band “would coexist and that they would use their best efforts to assist me on social media platforms, Amazon, iTunes, all that.”

Not assured by the contract, White ended up asking them for $10 million, half of which would go to helping her rebrand — something she couldn’t do as easily as her major label band counterpart — and the other half to charities of her choice.

“Five million dollars is nothing, and I’m actually worth more than that, regardless of what they think. But here we go again with another white person trying to take something from a Black person, even though they say they’re trying to help,” she said. “If you want to be an advocate or an ally, you help those who you’re oppressing. And that might require you to give up something because I am not going to be erased.”

White is still trying to resolve this case of brand confusion, which has left her filled with unexplainable sadness.

“I work hard, try to stay humble and pray, but it’s been horrible,” she told me in a Zoom call alongside her longtime creative partner John Oliver III. “As a Black person, at this time, going through continually having to defend myself after having my name taken from me, I’m exhausted.”

The singer is aware of the controversy surrounding Wallen and, not unlike Lady [Antebellum]’s gaffe, believes a teachable moment exists that can create sustainable avenues for Black artists looking for success in country music. However, the country music industry’s white establishment can’t be performative in their allyship if real change is to happen.

“White allyship for people of color requires that you reach back from a position of privilege to listen, learn, and get on board,” she said. “As well, you also have to occasionally give up something to show that you’ve made a change.”

The racial reckoning country music is experiencing comes at a time where other industries are having their own racial reckonings, and trying to address systemic wrongs that have existed for quite some time. Despite the makeup of country changing in recent years, the genre still has a race problem — whether it be gatekeeping what is and isn’t country or a mainstream band being unaware of the power they hold over an independent artist.

“Because Black people are everywhere now — and good at whatever we do — there should be room for us in country music,” White said. “Black people forgive when white artists appropriate our music. However, [white people] have a problem whenever Black people move into [tradtionally non-Black] music. It’s a problem.”

Oliver III, agreeing with White, put it more bluntly: “[White people] flexing the muscles of privilege is wrong. As long as [Black people] are continuing to push past this, we’ve won.”

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I think you're saying that A4:S2:C1 isn't just a shield against civil liberty encroachment across state lines, but it also expands prohibitions across state lines, including sodomy. That's pretty novel, in fact it is so novel especially with regard to sodomy laws that when I searched online for any research I found one of your posts but no corroborating legal commentary. I looked at the Federalists that cover Privileges and Immunities (42 & 80) and they, too, missed your interpretation.

While sodomy laws were certainly around at the time of the Constitution, most scholars insist they weren't enforced. Furthermore, execution for sodomy was rare - there was one recorded instance in the 18th century, and that was for "forced buggery." Parenthetically, but importantly for this discussion, the criminality of sodomy from what I read was equal if it was MF or MM. Thus, if one was to accept your interpretation, you are essentially arguing that a consensual act of sodomy between straight singles or married people is as illegal as it is for same-sex folks across this entire nation, according to the Constitution. That is, there is no carve-out for straights.

Turning away from the novelty, my point regarding bakers is that the linchpin by which you enable Leviathan to regulate consensual acts between adults is that SAME linchpin that makes bakers criminals for exercising their right of association. That linchpin is state control over anything except force or fraud. I have no problem if a cake baker rejects business on moral grounds - it's the baker's private property and their capital and their labor. It's not public property. It not my business if religious bakers turn down orders from same-sex couples just like it's not my business if Antifa bakers turn down business from MAGA people. But the moment society let the state regulate victimless crimes (more in that in a moment), it was only a matter of time before the bakers were hauled into court.

Moreover your assertion that faggotry is victimless is also in error. All the queers running amuck that we see in the culture now were inherent outcomes of legalization of homosexuality, which is a manifest evil. Everything from perversion of the idea of marriage, to transgenderism to incidents like drag queen story time for kids is an expression of that evil. And in nor only makes victims, in advancing further corruptions it will only make more and more victims as time goes on.

Just to be clear...you originally asserted (in effect, given that Colonial era sodomy prohibitions also extended to straights) that your beef was with homosexual ACTS. Now it is with homosexuals, and the attendant manifest evil. I will proceed with the belief that it's not buggering straights that bother you, but homosexuals.

I believe you are conflating victimless crimes with your manifest evil. Let me be clear: I am simply referring to what two adults do behind closed doors. Most of the gay people I've known or know simply want to be left alone, or at a minimum want to be able to set up contracts to give themselves legal protections over property. See my linchpin comment above on why I think criminalizing victimless behavior is stupid.

Continuing with manifest evil, I will grant you that regardless of one's legal views about sodomy laws, the Biblical sinfulness of homosexuality rests chiefly upon "Thou shalt not commit adultery". That is, only married couples (and in the Biblical sense, only a man and woman can marry) can engage in the conjugal act. It is a one-way ticket to hell if ANYONE has sex outside of marriage. In essence, not only are gays having sex in trouble, but so are sexually-active straights.

So, let us explore the piles of manifest evil in a Biblical sense. To the left, we have drag queen story time etc. To the right, we have the tidal wave of devestation that has washed over society from divorce and straight sex with fathers walking away from their responsibilities. The data are staggering...millions of kids whose parents put selfishness ahead of God and family suffer from low self-esteem etc. An estimated 70% of people in jail come from broken families. Zillions of dollars are spent lawyering up while the kids ping-pong back and forth between Mom and Dad and with whichever "other person" Mom and Dad are now violating the Commandments.

AND SOCIETY SAYS NOTHING! TV shows are silent on the destruction of divorce. Indeed, every other Hallmark Christmas story features a divorcée. In fact, when was the last time a preacher railed against divorce? Hannity got divorced - crickets. So did Levin. Rush was a threepeater (at least he never had kids). Trump twice.

I'm not denying that there are some pretty messed up situations off to the left, don't get me wrong. But I would submit to you, that preoccupation with homosexuality over divorce and the attendant impact on the nuclear family, is akin to fretting about splinters over beams. If people reoriented just a fraction of that energy and prayer aimed at homosexuality toward divorce, maybe we could make some REAL headway on healing society.

Thanks for listening. God be with you.

“ I think you’re saying that A4:S2:C1 isn’t just a shield against civil liberty encroachment across state lines, but it also expands prohibitions across state lines, including sodomy.”

No, I’m not saying that.

What I’m saying is that sodomy being illegal in any of the several States that ratified the Constitution demonstrates that there is no “P&I” or “other rights retained” to engage in homosexual acts.

It is perfectly constitutional for a State to legislate against homosexual acts, or indeed anything the States already forbade or which were unlawful under English Common Law when the States became independent and subsequently ratified Constitution or Amendment.

But that is not the same as saying one State’s prohibition thereby automatically extends to others, or to the Territories or seat of government etc (where the Congress could lawfully forbid homosexual acts because of certain allowances in the Constitution circumstantially granting more general legislative power in such places).

Fun aside: per Marbury v Madison it is wrong to assume that language in the Constitution is without function, a superfluity, which is what happens to all other enumerated powers when A1:S8:C1 is misconstructed to be a spending clause ... and similarly I will point out that the enumeration of any circumstantial exemptions to the doctrine of enumerated powers (that are actually made) are likewise rendered superfluous as without function if general power in all circumstances whatsoever may be had some “interpretation”.

Second Marbury aside : Likewise if it “worse than a solemn mockery” to require Justices to take their oaths of office and then turn a blind eye on the Constitution and only see statutes arrogating it then what is it to require a similar oath of office and yet require them to close their eyes to the Constitution and only see the opinions of the Court? Marbury is not the great strength of modern jurisprudence but it’s great weakness, which is why it was little thought of till it was willfully misconstrued/misconstructed by progressive jurists in the early 20th century.

Back from the asides...

Enforcement is not all important. The very existence of the States laws themselves demonstrates that there is no P&I because otherwise the Constitution would be the requiring the States not merely to honor the P&I they were all already honoring but those they were previously specifically on record as not honoring.

That too renders language inoperative. And since there were no other body of rights retained by the people than the selfsame P&I it renders the language of the 9th superfluous too as it would make it apply to anything someone might demand is a right covered even though not one “retained” when the Amendment was ratified.

Also, as there were generally laws against adultery you need to step back from the novelty that merely consenting should make something legal.

Here I would point out that the States, unlike our current condition where they generally demand a license first, all recognized common law marriage, that common law marriage without a license or permission of a State should be considered P&I. This is an upshot of something most Christians or Jews do not generally recognize, that in Scripture becoming one flesh is what institutes the marriage in the Lord’s sight. Ceremonies and vows came later, at least at some point after the time of the patriarchs. Common Law marriage is simply more ancient than any specific common law, including naturally English Common Law.

Here I would further observe that a mutual first time between a girl and a boy isn’t actually adultery per Scripture ... not sure how comfortable post sexual revolution people would be to discover that becoming one flesh was getting married in the Lord’s eyes (subsequently setting them up for adultery with anyone else).

But I digress, the States did enforce contracts, even verbal agreements that were well enough attested to ... but the States did not generally require anyone be made to enter into a specific transaction against their wishes (eminent domain being one of the few). This freedom to choose the contracts you enter into in business would and should be protected.

If you want to draw a comparison with being forced to make a cake celebrating a homosexual hooking up (it’s not marriage) I would suggest you look to a very peculiar demand some especially looney perverts are making: that if someone refuses to have sex with them that somehow constitutes a form of discrimination against them, either as homosexuals or transsexuals.

That better compares to forcing people enter into contracts that they do not wish to enter into.

Thankfully we’ve not yet reached the point that Bob Hope once joked about where homosexuality becomes mandatory (he joked he left California before it did) but given the irrational nature of the expansion of what constitutes being Woke (driven by what I call zeitgeist storms, where the Woke virtue signal to stay out ahead because if any seem to fall behind where being Woke is at the moment they risk being viciously bullied) I would say in a time of moral cowardice that it isn’t necessarily too many years before those loons try to mainstream themselves even more than they already are.

Again, Lawrence was only since in 2003. The perverts and their allies have been moving very fast.

Now about your contention: “ I will proceed with the belief that it’s not buggering straights that bother you, but homosexuals.”

Until this post I’ve not even suggested or mentioned raping normal people, and in this post I’ve only done so in reference to what may yet be demanded by the especially crazy or to suggest a better comparison between being made to enter into an arrangement.

Also, no part of the arguments or opinions I’ve been suggesting have revolved around homosexuals doing anything except with other homosexuals.

It is not “buggering straights” that is at issue.

Homosexuality is a “do” and NOT a “who”. It is not who anyone is in the sense of being a necessary part of their very identity. I realize that there is a growing trend in our overlay sentimental and feels burdened culture for people to believe that their homosexuality is somehow a necessary part of who they are so that they demand it must be how they were born but irrational feels are a huge part of why they are running amuck in the first place.

Am I bothered with homosexuals?

Well, am I bothered by thieves or muggers or murderers?

Homosexuality is, like the others are, intrinsically evil, disordered, but there is a distinction between doing evil things and being simply, flatly evil that applies with all of these.

Where homosexuality is unlike other evils is that, at least in recent decades since the sexual revolution, people have been wrapping their sense of self up in this thing they are doing and in doing so they can inflict greater harm on themselves.

Do you recall that AIDS was wrapped up in civil rights rhetoric and therefore treated differently than other diseases where quarantines are in order? It was wrapped up in that rhetoric in no small part because homosexuals had begun seeing this thing they do a necessary part of themselves. That’s more than a few victims.

Similarly the health issues associated with active homosexuality are well documented, all of which constitute further harm to them.

Victimless? Hardly. They themselves are the victims.

Both in time and in eternity.

Though of course the latter is beyond the scope or reach of any civil statute.

The Lord will deal with the spiritual condition and that includes those who by His grace, as Paul wrote, become a “such were some of you”. I’m not advancing license for individuals to take it upon themselves to do something about those who they think offend the divine ... which is a great distinction between Christianity and Islam, for the latter can seem to extend such license to individual Muslims resulting in things like honor killings or throwing folks from rooftops as a form of lynching.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.