The Misguided Smearing of Chris Janson’s “Drunk Girl”
The biggest threat to the integrity and preservation of American country music in the fall of 2018 is not the onslaught of Bro-Country, which is slowly but steadily writing its swan song. It’s not the threat of the EDM-inspired “Metro-Bro” style of country music popularized by Sam Hunt, whose recent single “Downtown’s Dead” recently stalled outside the Top 10 on the charts. The biggest existential threat to country music is not even the incursion of pop music into the format, illustrated most demonstrably by Bebe Rexha’s song “Meant To Be” now spending its record-breaking and historic 43rd week at #1 of the Billboard Hot Country Songs chart.
No, the biggest threat to country music at the moment is the rampant and rancid ultra-politicization of the country music space by opportunistic, interloping, and woefully-misguided journalists attempting to use the genre, its fans, and its artists as unwitting pawns to assert a biased agenda to change the mindset of the American electorate in their favor. And if country music won’t acquiesce to this agenda, then it must be undermined as a cultural institution, if not outright destroyed.
Don’t believe it when these people characterize how they love country music. They love country music because they see it as fertile ground to assert their political ideologies upon others under the guise of objective journalism. The latest example is this undercutting of Chris Janson’s song “Drunk Girl,” which recently edged into the Top 10 on mainstream country radio, and was nominated for Song of the Year by the CMAs.
For months there has been this undercurrent of hatred for the song by blue checkmarked Twitter journalists who’ve infiltrated country media en masse after being indoctrinated in gender and women’s studies classes via well-healed universities, and see country music as a last bastion of culturally repressive whiteness that must be torn asunder. Thankfully though, this undercurrent of disdain for “Drunk Girl” due to a misinterpretation of the song has mostly been relegated to the content of these Twitter accounts—the favorite forum for these biased embeds since their ideas will be championed in ever-metastasizing social media echo chambers, feeding their brain stems with microdoses of dopamine with every like and retweet they receive as opposed to having their assertions challenged in the marketplace of ideas.
But now The New Yorker has decided to take the message of Chris Janson’s “Drunk Girl” head on, and inexplicably tie it to the nomination process of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh to maximize the clickbait aspect of the story. In an articled entitled “The Kavanaugh Hearing, Chris Janson’s ‘Drunk Girl,’ and Country Music’s #MeToo Misfire,” Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Kathryn Schultz completely mischaracterizes the premise of the song, is totally incorrect about its performance on country radio, and like so many other articles recently, looks to set fire to something important and meaningful to country music fans to score political brownie points, generate clicks, draw blood from what they see as opposition, and unnecessarily politicize the country music populous around an item with an important message that is building an unusual amount of consensus in the often contentious country music space.
First, Kathryn Shultz implies that due to the Kavanaugh sexual misconduct allegations and the theme of Chris Janson’s “Drunk Girl,” the song has been abandoned by country radio and its fans. The article states:
Then came the ongoing debacle of the Brett Kavanaugh nomination, and, entirely by accident, “Drunk Girl” became almost too relevant—and, dismayingly, almost too radical—to play on the radio.
This is completely false. The amount of spins “Drunk Girl” has received on country radio since the sexual allegations against Brett Kavanaugh emerged on September 16th has only gone up. Though “Drunk Girl” has remained at the #10 spot on Billboard’s Country Airplay chart over the last couple of weeks, and at #8 on the MediaBase airplay chart and not moved up, the song gained 130 new plays this week on MediaBase, and 303 new plays on Billboard’s Nielsen metrics.
Here’s the line data:
But if we’re to understand the premise of this article in The New Yorker, we should be celebrating the disappearance of “Drunk Girl” on radio, because its message is so misguided and incendiary. The author wants to chastise country radio for abandoning the song due to political fear, while at the same time saying it worth abandoning. The article states:
“Drunk Girl” categorically fails. Taking a drunk girl home, not to have sex with her but to make sure she gets there safely, is not the difference between a boy and a man; it is the difference between the perpetrator of a violent crime and an averagely decent, law-abiding human being. The song might think it is encouraging men to behave better. For that matter, as Janson clearly hopes, it might even be encouraging men to behave better. But it is also characterizing their worst and most destructive actions as a kind of natural rite of passage, the acceptable follies of youth—exactly the same “boys will be boys” defense of sexual objectification, harassment, and assault that supporters of Kavanaugh are now articulating, without the piano backing, twenty-four hours a day.
The New Yorker‘s Kathryn Schultz also makes sure to point out, “[Janson] has supported President Trump (including turning his hit song “Truck Yeah” into “Trump Yeah” for a performance at the Republican National Convention, in 2016), which makes “Drunk Girl” even harder to take.” This corroborates the biased, and politically-motivated take down of the song.
Like many of these think pieces on country music published in distinctly non-country periodicals, Kathryn Shultz gives a down-talking Cliff Notes version of the history of country music in the article, naming off multiple songs to bolster the premise she’s looking to assert. In these such articles, there’s one thing you can guarantee: they always mention Loretta Lynn’s song “The Pill” as evidence of country music’s progressive past that has been abandoned by the current regime of Trump supporting country entertainers. This article in The New Yorker doesn’t disappoint.
“Loretta Lynn’s wildly controversial, wildly successful hit, ‘The Pill’ from 1972, doesn’t admonish women to take control of their bodies and their futures; it tells the story of one woman who, belatedly, does so,” the article says. But what The New Yorker doesn’t point out is that the biggest Trump supporter in the last Presidential election wasn’t Chris Janson, or even Toby Keith. It was Loretta Lynn.
In an interview with Rolling Stone in February of 2017, Lynn criticized The Women’s March held shortly after Trump’s inauguration, saying that it had no class. She also said, “I think they ought to leave [Trump] alone and let him do his job. That’s what I think. He’s up there and he’s the president. They need to help him, not hinder him. Everybody ought to pitch in and help, do everything they can to help the man.”
Something else telling about The New Yorker article is it talks extensively about the history of drinking songs in country music, and the history of drinking songs from Chris Janson specifically. But what it doesn’t point out is that Chris Janson is openly sober, and has spoken about his sobriety publicly numerous times. This is an important point to understand when listening to “Drunk Girl.” The article says Janson “seem(s) to be edging toward a reckoning with the dangerous side effects of alcohol” with his recent songwriting, but misses the reason why. Once again, this is the result of bad research and an important piece of knowledge a journalist embedded in country music on a daily basis wouldn’t overlook.
But the ultimate failing of The New Yorker article is not the fabrication of its lack of support on country radio, the overlooking of Chris Janson’s sobriety, or even the politicization of the song by inexplicably somehow tying it to the allegations against Judge Kavanaugh. It’s that author Kathryn Shultz’s conclusion on the underlying thematic premise and narrative thread of “Drunk Girl” is categorically false, or at least, woefully misinterpreted.
“Drunk Girl” is not about a guy deciding simply to drive a drunk girl home and not sleep with her, as if the ethical decision he faces is either rape or walking away. If you actually follow the premise of the song, the girl is willing to go home with the guy, and it’s the guy that’s making the conscious decision not to.
Let’s talk straight: Women like sex too, and often use alcohol to loosen inhibitions, and at times hit the town to get laid, especially after breakups or other bad moments in their life. What’s so important and unique about “Drunk Girl” is that it canonizes the guy who sees a girl who has thrown her life on the floor (as the lyrics say), and makes the conscious decision not to sleep with her, even though he can, and with consent.
When a man sees a woman in a vulnerable position, but is still willing to give consent, they never get credit if they decide to walk away. No blue ribbons are handed out. There’s no blurbs about it in the paper. They can’t even take to social media and brag about it, because their Bro buddies would probably chastise them for being weak, stupid, or a “pussy.” Sometimes the women might think there’s something wrong with him, or he’s a “nice guy” that wouldn’t be exciting to date. This is the whole meaning behind the phrase “Nice guys finish last.”
But that’s where “Drunk Girl” is different. It challenges this mindset. Saying that the song’s message is simply “don’t rape” while also presenting some soft acceptance of rape culture is so shortsighted. It’s giving those guys who don’t take advantage of women who are looking to get taken advantage of a pat on the back, while listing the reasons to make the right decision. “There’s a million things you could be doing, but there’s one thing you’re damn sure glad you did,” the song says, and later resolves with the woman calling the protagonist back, and perhaps the interaction leading to something else—something more meaningful.
Sure, it’s fair to diagram a song like “Drunk Girl” and say it’s ham-fisted, sappy, or too direct to the point of being ineffective at conveying its message—all things The New Yorker article points out while also making sure to give the song some passing credit, though in a backhanded manner. Yes, nuance is important in music, especially when you’re trying to deliver a message.
But why is “Drunk Girl” the song we’ve chosen to pick on and parallel with sexual assault allegations? Why not sift through the gaggle of songs from acts like Florida Georgia Line and Kane Brown that basically boil down to an interrogation room account of a date rape? Has The New Yorker ever heard Chase Rice’s song “Ready, Set, Roll” with its line, “Get ya’ little fine ass on the step, shimmy up inside…”? Or how about Florida Georgia Line’s “Sun Daze” with the phrase, “I sit you up on a kitchen sink, stick the pink umbrella in your drink.” Or the song “Mind Candy” by Walker Hayes, where he’s caught lusting over a girl in his mind that is “17 years new”?
Yet finally we have a song in the mainstream of country music by a popular male artist that gets it right, and the media is singling it out, pairing it up with a politically polarizing subject, and pilfering it with incorrect information.
Chris Janson is no friend of Saving Country Music’s. On his breakout single “Buy Me A Boat,” Saving Country Music concluded, “Chris Janson becomes the perfect pitchman for exuberant and unhealthy American consumerism in the wholly-unoriginal, culturally-deprecated, and easily-forgettable Bro-Country track.”
But “Drunk Girl” is one of those rare songs that builds consensus across the country music cultural divide that separates the classic and contemporary, mainstream and independent. It’s fiercely relevant for our time, yet not opportunistic or objectionably sentimental. It’s not the perfect country song, but it’s about as perfect as you can expect from the mainstream these days, and even more importantly, it’s been commercially successful, helping to spread its positive message, at least up until the moment The New Yorker decided to shame it, while also trying to convince radio it should remove it from playlists for political safety.
But “Drunk Girl” isn’t about politics at all, even though it does carry a very important message, while not being preachy about it. If you’re a politically-motivated left-leaning journalist, a song like “Drunk Girl” is exactly what you should want to hear emanating from popular country music. But maybe that’s the problem. As left-leaning actor Sean Penn said recently about the #MeToo movement, “The spirit of much of what has been the #MeToo movement has been to divide men and women.”
A song like this coming from a country music-singing, Trump-supporting straight white male presents a challenge to those who want to characterize country music as a bastion for the hatred of women. Instead, only women can carry these messages. Maybe that why sites like Saving Country Music, and male country music journalists who’ve championed the cause of country women recently are being attacked more than the actual men of power in the country industry who program the radio playlists, make the streaming decisions, decide who to sign to major labels and support with promotional budgets, and are directly responsible for keeping women down, while acts like Florida Georgia Line who present misogynistic lyrics and remain mum on the subject of women walk away with clean noses.
Chris Janson should be applauded for “Drunk Girl.” Characterizing it as a soft acceptance of rape is ridiculous. A song like “Drunk Girl” is important because it can bridge appeal across the cultural and political divide. And if you believe mainstream country is full of people who look down on women, the message of “Drunk Girl” is even more important expressly because it’s coming from someone like Chris Janson who supported Trump and will receive support from country radio where the message most needs to be heard as opposed to preaching to a choir. Articles like the one in The New Yorker don’t convince new people of anything. They’re simply virtue signaling to like-minded journalists and readers at the expense of a good song with an important message.
This is not about lashing out at left-leaning media. It is about preserving the ability of music to unite people behind common causes, come together around important issues, and listen to music that is compelling and enriching, no matter who you may have voted for during the last election. Regardless of your politics or your feelings on Chris Janson’s “Drunk Girl,” resisting the ultra-politicization of the country music space by click-hungry journalists should be a consensus issue. You want to write about politics? Then go ahead. But don’t bring up country music in non sequiturs, especially when you don’t have your facts straight, and don’t comprehend the music you’re criticizing.
– – – – – – – – –
Daughters, sisters, mothers, and nieces. Seeing them in the eyes of a woman you may encounter at a bar is what “Drunk Girl” is all about. Trying to make the song synonymous with allegations of sexual assault against a public figure is irresponsible to the point of contempt. “Drunk Girl” is a diametric opposite of such things.
Thank you Chris Janson and co-songwriters Tom Douglas and Scooter Carusoe for “Drunk Girl,” and good luck with your CMA Song of the Year nomination. It is well-deserved.
L.
September 28, 2018 @ 8:44 am
Ehhh. I get what she’s saying – the difference between a boy and a man shouldn’t be taking advantage of a drunk girl. But I feel like thats just semantics. The point of the song is doing the right thing. I’ve been there… I was once a 22 year old drunk girl, fell down drunk and hurt myself, and that was the night a friend of a friend tried to take advantage of me, when I was incredibly vulnerable and might not have been able to fight back. Luckily, I still had enough in me to persistantly say no and get rid of him, but I’ve been there, when a guy DIDN’T do the right thing. Its nice to see someone singing a song that actually MEANS something and has a relevant message, than to see guys singing about girls shaking their asses in short shorts. Sucks to see someone try to ruin that.
MJ
September 28, 2018 @ 9:07 am
Yes, agreed, it is totally semantics and in no way implies that it is acceptable or normal to take advantage of a vulnerable person when still a “boy.” While the message of the song is important, its still a song, and there are limitations to the exact wording.
The fact that a journalist would try to attack this song exemplifies why identity politics is the worst part of our society. “We have to attack the other side even if we agree with the message.”
Tex Hex
September 28, 2018 @ 10:00 am
Regarding the semantics of “boy” vs. “man” it’s might be the simplest way to compare a state of being which is immature and impulsive vs. mature and virtuous which, I think, a male country audience would understand easily.
Country, as a music and culture primarily sourced from (and enjoyed by) agrarian or otherwise working class people who require physical strength and stamina to do their jobs, hasn’t maligned or forbidden masculinity to placate the progressive mass-media zeitgeist, and it likely never will. Being a “man” is important to its male audience, but to those men who may be confused about what that means, a song like this makes it clear.
By the same token, most mainstream hip-hop (the most popular music genre/culture on the planet at the moment) celebrates masculinity in its most toxic and violent forms with impunity and its top artists are frequently known abusers and rapists (from old school artists like Dr. Dre to contemporary artists like the recently deceased XXXtentation and 6ix9ine who have assaulted women in public or on camera!). So there’s no confusion, not trashing the genre wholesale. I was a big hip-hop fan as an adolescent in the 90’s and will cherish most of those records for the rest of my life.
CJA
December 4, 2018 @ 1:30 pm
The difference between the right word and nearly the right word is huge. As a poet/ songwriter/ author, the lyricist has an obligation to get the message exactly right. Once released, there are no do overs. I was struck by the same sentiments expressed in the New Yorker. My daughter and i had a conversation about toxic masculinity after hearing this song. As a dad, it was an invaluable moment. Now we change the dial when this song comes on.
HesPryne
June 24, 2021 @ 8:50 pm
A girl/woman can agree to have sex even though she’s drunk. I’ve done it, many women have. We like sex too, even drunk. The song goes deeper, the ‘boy / man’ is talking about the maturity level, and it’s not about rape. It’s about wanting sexual encounters to mean more than just a hook up. It’s a good song, this can also be turned the same way around on the sexes if anyone wanted to do another song that way, have at it.
Isaac Pfeffer
September 28, 2018 @ 8:48 am
The incredible irony of this is the song came on over the radio in a public place today as I was reading this article. Abandoned my ass, keep politics out of music and mind your own business. Leeches.
A.K.A. City
September 28, 2018 @ 8:49 am
I haven’t seen any of the vitriol towards the song as described in the article, but I will take the article’s word that it exists. I am someone who does more than lean left (might as well call me an Isbell-lover!), but I can’t find a reason to criticize this song’s content. I think the song is clumsy but overall well-meaning. Out of a whole slew of songs glorifying drinking and hook up culture out there in popular country music (not to mention there are several songs that are borderline condoning date rape), to target the one song that is trying to do something better baffles me.
I guess I can say #NotAllLiberals and chalk this up to a few journalists looking for a controversy that isn’t there.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 8:59 am
“Drunk Girl” was just criticized by Pulitzer Prize-winning author Kathryn Schultz in ‘The New Yorker,’ with the title of the article tying it to the sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kanvanaugh. I’m not sure how much more high profile you can get than that.
Here’s the link:
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/the-accidental-wisdom-of-chris-jansons-drunk-girl
A.K.A. City
September 28, 2018 @ 9:19 am
I said that I didn’t see articles circulated about (and I waste too much time as is on social media) but didn’t doubt they exist.
Thanks for the link.
A.K.A. City
September 28, 2018 @ 9:55 am
I read through the article, which I would recommend people do before commenting (I was guilty of this myself). The point of the article is that it is generally sad that a song like this has to exist in the first place. It ends saying that more people need to hear it. Is it fair for the journalist to use the song as a frame for a discussion on rape culture? Maybe not, but I wouldn’t call it a smearing of the song.
Trigger, I agree with your point that looking for controversy when it is not there is also a bad thing.
Gloria
September 28, 2018 @ 6:48 pm
That song just came out at the wrong time.
Sarah Ross
September 29, 2018 @ 5:05 am
The song didn’t come out at the wrong time. It’s a beautiful song and if people really listen to the words and stop making everything political, they would hear what it’s really saying. Chris is more country than FGL and Bebe’s song is as annoying as “cruise”.
Trigger
September 29, 2018 @ 9:44 am
I kind of think the timing of the song is perfect. It was written and released before #MeToo so you can’t label it as opportunistic, yet it’s a good message that still needs to be heard. The fact that it’s peaking in popularity right as the whole Kavanaugh issue (regardless of how you feel about it) is reigniting the discussion about consent an sexual assault is even better. This is country music showing leadership and reflecting the culture, which is an attribute of all great art. Why we would run it down I think shows the political motivations of some people, which is not to improve life, but to undermine others to prop themselves up as the virtuous.
wayne
September 28, 2018 @ 8:52 am
You know, I am just really hating liberals anymore. Good post Trig.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 9:13 am
The right has made these same type of unwanted and destructive incursions into country music in the past as well. (See: The Dixie Chicks). But recently there is this idea that has permeated the journalism corps that country music is where the political fight needs to focus, and they will usurp everything we love about country music, and destroy it as a place for people to come together if we allow them to go unchecked.
Tucker Kennedy
September 28, 2018 @ 12:19 pm
The left is much more adamant about its invasion into the media. Look at Will Hoge.
Mad_Habber
October 1, 2018 @ 6:08 am
I don’t think it is just country music, as someone that would be consider a gamer I see this type of thing as all too common. Heck recently there was a controversy over a writer at one of the top gaming websites getting caught plagiarizing. A writer that had done some slight right leaning news pieces requested to talk to the writer that had been palgiarized and he refused because of political differences.
It’s crazy that we can’t even agree on things that are clearly right or wrong anymore because of politics.
Chris
September 28, 2018 @ 7:11 pm
Hey, I’m a liberal, and I see nothing wrong with this song.
In fact, given who the far right have supported for president and for Supreme Court justice, I think it’s actually refreshing to see a viewpoint like this coming from a right-wing entertainer.
King Honky Of Crackershire
September 29, 2018 @ 6:51 am
The far right hates Trump. We supported Cruz in the primary, and either stayed home, or voted 3rd party in the general.
Obviously, those of us on the far right, or true right, are tiny in number.
Trigger
September 29, 2018 @ 9:50 am
Believing in the protection and respect of women is not a right or left issue. Far right individuals still love their daughters, sisters, etc., and don’t want some scuzzball taking advantage of them. That was the worst part about this article in “The New Yorker” and other characterizations of the song. They politicized it, as if being a conservative or a Trump supporter means you openly endorse rape. No, you don’t. Everyone hates rape except rapists. Chris Janson proved that, and perhaps that was the most dangerous part of the song, and why it had to be refuted. Can’t have a conservative championing these issues, because it undercuts the mischaracterizations of them. So it must be picked apart, lampooned, and discredited. There are reams of other songs worthy of criticizing for their lack of respect of women in country music. I think it’s very telling why this one was selected.
Spoony
September 30, 2018 @ 9:52 am
Nominating a believer in the Constitution is not something that’s “far-right.” Get real.
EastCoastRedDirtDreamer
September 28, 2018 @ 8:54 am
Well said Trig.
Nate
September 28, 2018 @ 9:14 am
Yeah, I’m getting real tired of the blue check mark brigade on twitter who worship Isbell and Margo Price because of their politics suddenly acting like they have the best interests of country at heart. I like them because of their music, not their politics. The blue check mark brigade seems to choose their favorites artits based on politics. The music is secondary to them.
Greg29
October 11, 2018 @ 11:48 am
Ha! I had to look up blue check mark since I don’t pay much attention to tweets. ARS also says “Now, bad behavior anywhere online may be enough to downgrade a user to “unchecked.”
They play hardball. Unchecked! Takes my breath away.
Hard Times
September 28, 2018 @ 9:38 am
I agree with everything Trig says on this. Still, I wish the songwriters had chosen different words from the lyrics for the title, maybe, “That’s How She Knows” or “The Difference Between a Boy and a Man,” or even, “Pick Up Her Life.” I get that the big reveal is that the song does not unfold the way you think it might based on the title. Yet something about “Drunk Girl” doesn’t sit well with me. Seems too coarse or too easily misunderstood. But that’s a quibble.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 10:00 am
That’s a fair assessment of the title. But for me, the title is one of the best attributes of the song. In my opinion, the double entendre is just as much a classic element of country music as fiddle and steel guitar. The fact that Bros may roll up on this song thinking it’s a party anthem and be exposed to an important message is a good thing. “Drunk Girl” is not the perfect song, and for some of the reasons ‘The New Yorker’ pointed out. But my gosh, to select it out of the herd of terrible country songs—especially the ones talking down to women—and then somehow try to tie it to the Kavenaugh accusations, is just beyond all. And even worse, it could discourage artists from writing and cutting such songs in the future.
Charlie
September 28, 2018 @ 9:49 am
I am thankfully ALMOST totally detached from this kind of shit. I WOULD, though, like to understand how a man is supposed to act when it seems like ANY act of showing interest in pursuing sex with a woman is viewed as an assault, ANDresults in a ‘nuclear option’ response.
I think, It All Depends on How You Look . . . at it?
https://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/tv-funhouse-sexual-harassment-and-you/2751966
Mark
September 28, 2018 @ 10:04 am
I’m a little annoyed that it appears my comment didn’t seem to go through, but I’ll just repost what I said about this on Billboard BREAKDOWN. Keep in mind that I’ve not only gone after sexism in bro-country but also the rampant systemic issues surrounding women in the country music industry, and that I really goddamn hate how major journalists who don’t have the furthest familiarity with country as a genre want to pigeonhole a complex and multi-faceted genre with poignant messages on both left and right, plus amp up a level of hyperbole that’s rarely ever appropriate.
That said, ‘Drunk Girl’ doesn’t work – valiant effort, but to quote myself from a few weeks back…
‘…Now ‘Drunk Girl’ was one of his more polarizing songs to be pushed, specifically because of its subject matter in discussing sexual misconduct – apparently written before the #MeToo movement but likely a factor of its marketing now – and going for a stripped back piano ballad means that he’s taking a real chance with this content… and honestly, I really want to like this song. The instrumentation is tasteful, and I appreciate Janson being a decent person and letting the girl sleep it off and not taking advantage of her – that’s real, and I’ll admit to having been in that situation myself. But then you get the final chorus where she comes back because he was a nice guy and it twists the framing in a way that not only feels unrealistic, but also a little condescending – you don’t need to pick at her life even if she is wasting it, and the lack of comments on his sobriety raises even more questions. I’m reminded of when Dessa put out ‘Ride’ earlier this year, where she at least gets that if the girl is making the wrong choice, she’s not looking to be saved by her or anyone, and I think this could have had more realistic power by framing it as a good deed that’s never reciprocated… because in reality, that’s what happens. So yeah, not bad intentions with this, but he unfortunately missed the mark, at least to me.’
To be more blunt, I’m not in favour of giving ‘nice guys’ a pat on the back just because they didn’t fall in with asinine macho posturing – be men, take accountability for yourself, call out the fucking creeps in your circle who propagate macho shit, and grow the hell up. It’s a little sad that anyone feels they need a reward or trophy for not taking advantage of a woman in that situation of which Janson is a little too ready to describe how she’s falling out of her dress and getting sloppy – yeah, she’s likely going to walk away in the morning and you’re never going to see her again, but that happens, that’s reality in the modern world.
Hell, it’s almost something like what Jesus would do in the good deed without expectation of recompense, and the expectation framed by her coming back is what really irks me and twists the framing of the song, especially when we don’t know how drunk the guy narrating might be that night. That’s what changes the song for me, the very observant and controlled tone of the writing, from ‘oh, we both got tipsy but we’re a little too far so let’s slow down’ to the creepy sober guys you see who wait until the girls get sloppy and then aim to pick them up only to get a twinge of conscience when they get back home – or worse still, the expectation that since you didn’t take advantage of her, she’ll wind up so thankful back on your doorstep when her life is back together, adding a weird romantic element that feels a little disingenuous and manipulative.
Again, I don’t think Chris Janson set out to make ‘that’ song – that was ‘Treat You Better’ by Shawn Mendes from two years back – but it does reflect a lack of more realistic followthrough because he wanted to sell the cheaper happy ending, where a songwriter like Karen Jonas, James McMurtry, Lori McKenna, Jason Eady, or even Eric Paslay on a song like ‘She Don’t Love You’ would have left it ambiguous or never have had the woman come back. A little more depressing, but overall more realistic and cathartic.
Eh, whatever. Hope this post goes through, because like a song such as ‘Different For Girls’, I respect the intentions of a song like ‘Drunk Girl’. But the execution could have fared better.
North Woods Country
September 29, 2018 @ 5:32 am
You are swimming in convoluted waters, dude. I haven’t heard the song in awhile but all that’s mentioned is that she texts “thank you” in the morning, I think.
I don’t think Janson implies expectations of any kind. He does the right thing. She appreciates it and thanks him because he left her his number in case she was into him.
SRM
September 29, 2018 @ 9:55 am
Hey Mark, I have to agree with North Woods Country here: As I tried to say on your Billboard Breakdown video, I have no idea where you’re getting this plot point of her going back to the guy because he was “such a nice guy”? There is nothing in the text of the song to support that. I’m fine with you not liking the song, but I don’t think you can fault it for giving “nice guys a pat on the back.” It really doesn’t do that.
Kevin Ross
September 28, 2018 @ 10:09 am
what happened to the day when “journalists” just reported the news instead of trying to socially engineer every situation.
CountryKnight
September 29, 2018 @ 6:45 am
That time never existed. Yellow journalism has been around forever.
Cool Lester Smooth
September 30, 2018 @ 5:13 pm
Yeah!
I can’t believe that an Opinion piece, clearly marked as an Opinion piece, expressed an opinion! That never used to happen in clearly labeled Opinion pieces!!!!!
Brian
September 28, 2018 @ 10:15 am
This is crazy, I was outside singing this song to myself and thought how I am surprised nobody has tried to politicize it yet. I really hope this song wins, it is an excellent song in my opinion.
Tex Hex
September 28, 2018 @ 10:16 am
Thanks for this Trigger. The relationship between men and women, and all its complexities, has been absolutely nuked by toxic politics as of late. It’s one thing to shed a light on sexual violence (which is a real concern and always an important issue to address and help resolve), and another to weaponize it for political points or outright gain (ie. during voting cycles). The idea that one sex is naturally wicked while another is naturally virtuous (but ironically, without agency?) is not only backward and reductive, but logically false.
Peanut
September 29, 2018 @ 3:47 pm
People are making a point to criticize both sides here but it is the left that is doing these things. I hang out with right wingers, conservatives are the ones fighting this crap. Misandry people, it is the opposite of misogyny.
Jack Humphrey
September 28, 2018 @ 11:03 am
I absolutely agree. Pop artists today may be intent on “speaking their truth” by inserting political messages into their music, but politics has ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE in country music. I hope in the future ignorant journalists will make a more deliberate effort to avoid mischaracterizing songs like “Drunk Girl” and frankly just stay the hell out of our business.
Corncaster
September 28, 2018 @ 11:06 am
I’m the father of a beautiful daughter and two sons, and I want to thank Janson for recording this song. It captures my feelings on the subject pretty much exactly.
Schultz says: “Taking a drunk girl home, not to have sex with her but to make sure she gets there safely, is not the difference between a boy and a man; it is the difference between the perpetrator of a violent crime and an averagely decent, law-abiding human being.”
For the winner of a Pulitzer, she sure can’t read. The line actually goes:
“that’s how she knows the difference between a boy and man”
What the father is saying is that, if the young man really wants a solid relationship, the young woman has to know that he’s worthy of one. That’s a two-way street. Taking her home and leaving your phone number there is both a kindness and, tellingly, an indication of continuing faith in her.
I wouldn’t expect a party hack like Schultz to appreciate that kind of subtlety, but the rest of you probably do. This is a fine song, and a fine sentiment, and I applaud Janson for writing it.
Jared S.
September 28, 2018 @ 11:22 am
I don’t hate the song, but I don’t really like it. My issue is that, while the character in the song does the right thing, he’s pretty paternalistic about it, like he’s saving her from herself.
It’s great when people are around to help you when you aren’t making good decisions. But a girl isn’t necessarily “throwing her life on the floor” because she drinks and dances too much one night.
Jared S.
September 28, 2018 @ 12:04 pm
After reading the New Yorker article, I’m going to echo AKA City above and Jack Williams below. The article isn’t as critical of the song as you paint here. It says that the song is blunt, earnest and “message-y,” all fair criticism. But it concludes with, yes, the message of the song is needed.
You can complain about the political hot-take, but it wasn’t a “smear” as you state.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 1:01 pm
For the record, “smear” was only used in the title of the article as a generalized characterization of the way the song is being portrayed by multiple people including media members, not just the article in ‘The New Yorker.’ The idea that “Drunk Girl” is tantamount to endorsing rape has been passed about on Twitter for months. That is why I mentioned the Twitter echo chambers as part of this topic. But I still stand behind the idea that if you’re going to take a song that is speaking out against taking advantage of women and conflating it with the sexual allegations against Brett Kavanaugh (which ‘The New Yorker’ did in its title), the effort is to discredit, and mischaracterize. ‘Smear’ may be a bit harsh, but it’s not wholly inappropriate.
Also, I thought the conclusion of the article was down-looking in itself. Like much of modern journalism, the article was written in 1st person to facilitate virtue signaling. “I’m a better person, so I see this song as THIS, but I guess since there’s so many bad people out there unlike me, it’s needed.”
But again, she completely misunderstood the premise of the song.
Jared S.
September 28, 2018 @ 1:11 pm
I don’t think she misunderstood it. I think she unfairly focused on the “boy vs man” part of the song, and she added a ham-fisted political angle. And I think the article was way longer than it needed to be.
But I think her characterization and criticism of the song itself was relatively nuanced. Much moreso than I expect in most journalism today.
Tex Hex
September 28, 2018 @ 12:16 pm
I sorta get that vibe too. The hero and damsel-in-distress trope, and patting yourself on the back for not being a rapist is, weird – especially when it seems some predatory men have a hero complex or do the “gentleman” routine and expect something in return for “doing the right thing.”
However, I’ll give this song the benefit of the doubt and chalk the message up to “hey, guys this is just what you do, because it’s just a good thing to do.” I mean, the argument for “this song has a nice message” is a lot stronger than “this song is ‘problematic’.”
CountryKnight
September 29, 2018 @ 6:46 am
Despite what legions of misguided gender studies professors tell you, there is nothing problematic with the hero and damsel in distress trope.
King Honky Of Crackershire
September 29, 2018 @ 9:15 am
Having sex with a woman who wants sex isn’t rape. Drunkenness doesn’t negate willingness.
Rape is an entirely different topic than the fairytale painted in this stupid song.
Tony Texas
January 7, 2019 @ 2:25 am
Uh, what?
Just about every state (and probably all of them) classifies sex with somebody under impaired by alcohol or drugs as either rape or sexual battery.
Trigger
September 29, 2018 @ 9:55 am
Tex Hex,
Again, I think that’s the fundamental misinterpretation of the song. I think ‘The New Yorker’ is interpreting the song as ‘don’t rape,’ where I think Chris Janson’s intention (esp. when you watch the video) is to say, ‘Don’t take an advantage of a women, even when you can, and there’s consent.’ The great things about songs is we can all interpret them differently based on our life experiences. But I think in this case the intentions of the song are pretty overt, and trying to find a subversive message in it takes a big leap of faith.
lovethedesert
March 20, 2021 @ 8:44 pm
my husband, who is far, far, far, from a left-winger or social justice warrior of any kind — but who is also a TRUE gentleman, not a fake one — HATES this song and thinks it is SO weird.
Dirt Road Derek
September 28, 2018 @ 11:30 am
Very well said, Trigger. I had no idea the song was being politicized, and its message twisted, in this way. It’s disgusting.
A side note; for a few months after my wife and I bought our little bass boat, we couldn’t resist singing But Me A Boat every time we took it out on the lake. Unhealthy American consumerism be damned. We’ve got a boat, a cooler full of beer, two Zebcos, and country music on the radio. And we finally swapped out the trolling motor for 1962 Johnson Seahorse. More unhealthy consumerism, I’m sure. Seriously, fuck these sour grapes.
Jack Williams
September 28, 2018 @ 11:33 am
I’ve read the article and I can see how you could have some problems with t, but labeling it a “smear” doesn’t ring true to me.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 12:29 pm
“Smear” may be a little harsh for the assessment from “The New Yorker,” though conflating it with sexual harassment allegations is pretty darn smearing. But that assessment is probably not harsh enough for some of the stuff I’ve seen on Twitter which boils down to claiming “Drunk Girl” is basically an endorsement for rape.
Gloria
September 28, 2018 @ 6:54 pm
It is so true .have you notice that all music and shows have to look at in world happenings that song drunk girl came out a very poor time
the pistolero
September 28, 2018 @ 11:50 am
The New Yorker is a shitty publication, in so many ways. They also did a feature on Jason Isbell whose entire focus was on his trip to a New York art museum as opposed to his actual music.
Bob Vance
September 28, 2018 @ 11:53 am
“But what The New Yorker doesn’t point out is that the biggest Trump supporter in the last Presidential election wasn’t Chris Janson, or even Toby Keith. It was Loretta Lynn.
In an interview with Rolling Stone in February of 2017, Lynn criticized The Women’s March held shortly after Trump’s inauguration, saying that it had no class. She also said, “I think they ought to leave [Trump] alone and let him do his job. That’s what I think. He’s up there and he’s the president. They need to help him, not hinder him. Everybody ought to pitch in and help, do everything they can to help the man.” “
This is such an embellishment of the facts it’s crazy. I agree with most of what you said but don’t call Loretta Lynn the biggest Trump supporter in all of country music and then use that lukewarm quote from RS as evidence. Such a perversion of the truth! Again I agree with almost everything you said but shit like that makes you no better than the New Yorker author.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 12:26 pm
Loretta Lynn was the biggest supporter of Trump during the last Presidential campaign among well-recognized country artists, and it isn’t even close.
Some of Loretta’s shows descended into downright political rallies, with posters, the passing out of literature, and voter registration initiatives. I agree one quote from one source is probably not enough to establish this, but I didn’t want to go off on too much of a tangent. The topic probably deserves (or deserved) its own article. But if you don’t trust me all you have to do is turn to Mr. Google and find reams of information corroborating my claim. You can start with this note from Donald Trump thanking Loretta Lynn personally:
https://www.facebook.com/DonaldTrump/posts/thank-you-loretta-lynn-official-it-is-time-to-make-america-great-again-will-not-/10156529265205725/
And yes, this was before he had even secured the Republican nomination.
The reason I felt the need to address this is because it is disingenuous when you use Loretta Lynn’s name or some of her songs to endorse liberal or or Democratic ideas. As I said in the article, often these artists and their songs are used as “unwitting pawns” by journalists trying to make a point with only partial information. When Loretta Lynn wrote “The Pill,” she wasn’t being partisan. She didn’t write it from a liberal standpoint. She wrote it from the standpoint of a WOMAN. That is why the song had impact. That is why the song resonated. If it had been politicized (which it was partially, which got it banned from some stations), it wouldn’t have been as effective. The same goes for “Drunk Girl.” Chris Janson didn’t write this song to piggy back off the #MeToo movement. It preceeds #MeToo. He wrote it because the respect of women should be a universal topic. Politicizing it by inexplicably conflating it with sexual harassment claims against Brett Kavanaugh, and trying to talk it off of radio for being too political can only hurt the message of the song.
But your point of needing more info on Loretta is fair. I just didn’t want to bog down on the topic.
Jeff Tappan
September 28, 2018 @ 12:21 pm
I despise the sorry state of ‘ country music ‘ , as Trashville is cranking it out. And, quite frankly, I’m not surprised that the Left has gone after country music, since it’s considered rather plebian. But, the lyrics show a man who’s willing to make the right decision, because he can live with himself. Kudos to the writer.
Benny Lee
September 28, 2018 @ 12:42 pm
Actually made it to the end of the song. Since it’s a Chris Janson song, I’m shocked.
Derek Sullivan
September 28, 2018 @ 1:36 pm
Good job Trig, the article is a complete fail. I started coming to this site because no one at Entertainment Weekly or other entertainment publications know how to handle not just country music, but what I call Heartland music. Music people in flyover states like the one I live in enjoy. Eric Church is one of my favorite performers and you’re (hopefully) upcoming review is the only one I’m going to read. The ones in national magazines will find some dumb narrative and not review the music.
Wild Billy
September 28, 2018 @ 1:38 pm
I’ll state the obvious. It is VERY HARD to write a hit song. Heck, it’s hard to write any song. Beginning, middle, end, chorus, verse, flow, measures, continuity , progression, and ultimately good storytelling. How frustrating it must be to produce a decent and timely song like “Drunk Girl” only to have folks with an agenda latch onto a misguided misinterpretation. Is it the best song in the world? No, but songs like this need to be celebrated. I like the message, and I like the song. Afterall, this was miles better then Keith Urban’s horrific and pandering “Female”.
Wild Billy
September 28, 2018 @ 1:44 pm
(As a quick follow up) – The real travesty here is that “Hotel Key” is somehow in the #1 position on that “Country Aircheck” poll. That song is horrific. Somebody should investigate THAT !
Ulysses McCaskill
September 28, 2018 @ 2:12 pm
Very good article, well said Trig.
Boss
September 28, 2018 @ 2:56 pm
Trigg I can’t hardly read your writing lately bub. You’re cramming too many $5 words in too close together. Doesn’t flow like it should.
Chet
September 28, 2018 @ 3:34 pm
Yeah, who do these lefties think they are? It’s not like right wingers ever use rap songs to make a point….
Oh, wait, except that they do, nonstop. They whine loud, they whine long. They use music they don’t like to make political points.
Just like you’re accusing these folks of doing, Mr. Trigger.
You’re better than this, you have some pretty good writing chops.
A song is good or it’s not, we don’t need to delve into TMZ level political crap. It’s boring.
And FFS, can we talk about music without politics coming up?
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 4:25 pm
“A song is good or it’s not, we don’t need to delve into TMZ level political crap. It’s boring.
And FFS, can we talk about music without politics coming up?”
I think you meant to leave this comment on “The New Yorker.”
As I said in the first few paragraphs of this article, the incursion of politics into the country music space—and by both sides mind you—is the biggest existential threat to country music at the moment. This isn’t a fight I asked for, but I’m willing to fight it. Because I agree, we should be able to listen to a song like “Drunk Girl” without it being an act of politics.
Jared S.
September 28, 2018 @ 5:31 pm
I like chicken sandwiches. Apparently that means I’m homophobic.
I watch the NFL, and I tried on some Nikes a couple weeks ago. I guess that means I hate the flag and the military.
It’s all politicised. It’s all dumb.
Trigger
September 28, 2018 @ 6:59 pm
And that’s what I don’t want to see happen to country music.
Chet
September 28, 2018 @ 5:44 pm
Point taken.
I’m a liberal who loves country music, and I can assure you liberals who like country music know the New Yorker lady is a scold who’s overthinking things and has too much time on her hands.
GrantH
September 28, 2018 @ 3:48 pm
I realize people here cringe at left vs. right comparisons, but seriously, what’s going here is that the leftists in the media are grasping at anything they can get their hands on. They already dominate the narratives in pop, rap/hip-hop, and most mainstream rock, so why not try for country music too? And in a way, it’s a good idea, because a sizeable amount of Trump supporters, obviously, listen to country music. What better way to get back at Trump and conservatives than by subverting their culture and music? Of course, it doesn’t take a right-winger to see what’s actually going on. I’m passionate about politics myself, but not when it comes to my music. I want to hear country songs about drowning heartbreak in booze and the simple things in life, not to be preached to by someone with an agenda.
ScottG
September 28, 2018 @ 7:02 pm
I’m no fan of a certain person trying to discredit the “fake news” media, but as a centrist who has mostly voted democrat, the continual slipping of the party and the media from liberalism to leftism is actually pushing me more to the right, and to hate most media. As you’ve said before trigger, the media is a beneficiary to the escalating division in this country. This shit sells, and they don’t care that they’ve sold their souls in the process.
Benny Lee
October 1, 2018 @ 9:37 am
Sorry, that’s an extremely uninformed opinion that I hear too often. The democratic party has actually been following the republican party more to the right for decades.
Both parties are completely controlled by big money corporatists.
And the “fake news” media is not leftist either, they’re owned by those same corporate fat cats who push these ridiculous opinions everywhere because controversy sells. Take the Washington Post, for example: do you think Jeff Bezos, the trillionaire, is actually a leftist progressive thinker?
ScottG
October 1, 2018 @ 9:52 am
Using the richest man in the world who owns, not operates one newspaper as an example of the general ideological tendencies of an industry makes me not even want to take your comment seriously.
We could go the Noam Chomsky route all day…I get it, they cater to businesses, etc…it’s a tightrope they walk in some regards, but for the most part it is beyond obvious it is moving further to the left….in particular on social and socio economic issues. If we can’t agree on that, then it’s probably easier for you to continue to see me as “extremely uninformed.”
Cackalack
October 2, 2018 @ 7:25 am
That’s not a particularly well-informed opinion either, my friend. Both of those takes are great oversimplifications. Both sides of the aisle have moved different directions on different issues over the past couple decades, with most good research identifying the GENERAL (with many exceptions) trend as both parties drifting towards their respective extremes, with a gap appearing in the center-right on social issues and a somewhat smaller one in the center-left on economic issues.
Andrew J. Persac
May 14, 2019 @ 9:47 pm
Are you freaking serious????? “The Democrap Party has been following the Republicans to the right”??? As an ACTUAL right-wing conservative, I would contend that the exact OPPOSITE is true. “My” party is leaving me & tilting to the left it seems (hence why Trump rather than Ted Cruz was nominated & elected). But the premise of this story makes sense to me. Liberal idiot journalists who know nothing about & don’t care about country music, stay the heck out of reporting about it! And I admit I’m someone who actually likes modern country, which this website generally does not. (But most should agree that Bebe Rehxa is NOT a country singer, nor is that now #1 rap song country in almost any way, Billy Ray Cyrus remix or not!)
Bill
September 28, 2018 @ 9:23 pm
I’m a radical left wing millennial guy (if that has anything to do with anything) and i always thought this was a crappy song. I might read this article more closely tomorrow. Was at the Kid Rock, Brantley Gilbert, WWJr show tonight and I’m still a little drunk. Chris Janson sucks. I remember Ward Davis and WM&78s opened for him awhile back and Ward said on social media that his band hogged all the stage with their equipment. Really trying to not give a shit about any of this because politics and pop country Just get me down.
Tunesmiff
September 29, 2018 @ 5:28 am
All I can say is, like the song or not, compare its message to Kenny Cheney’s “…last night I went home at two with a ten, but woke up at ten with a two…”
CountryKnight
September 29, 2018 @ 6:49 am
You can’t win with them. Never have, never will. They will always find something to complain about. Or discover some convoluted way to tie two completely unrelated objects together under the guise of textual evidence or mere fantasy.
Let’s face it, their goal is to destroy American heritage and country music is American as it comes.
King Honky Of Crackershire
September 29, 2018 @ 7:03 am
There’s a lot of things that cross my mind with this song, and the “controversy” that now surrounds it.
First of all, the premise of the song has no root in reality. It essentially paints a picture of a fairytale universe, where neither men nor women want sex.
In real life, men and women go to bars to follow the party wherever it will take them. From my experience, drunk girls want sex while they’re drunk, and they want more of it when they wake up the next morning.
And the lefties are so hard to follow, because they can’t make their minds up about which position they truly hold. Are women fully equal to men in every way, including in their ability to decide for themselves to “get drunk and screw”, or are women different than men, physically weaker and emotionally more volatile, and thus need to be protected by men from acting on their own desires? Which is it?
Trigger
September 29, 2018 @ 10:06 am
At the risk of slightly agreeing with you Honky, I will say this: Reading you comment I think helped me realize what might be the underlying cause for the hatred of “Drunk Girl.” It’s that a man is the hero of the story as opposed to a woman. For some, that in itself these days is a scandalous and abjectly political stance that must be repudiated, while if these people really cared about the protection and respect of women, they would be celebrating this song, and expressly because it came from a conservative man.
ScottG
September 29, 2018 @ 1:00 pm
Maybe you then hit on another point that I’ve been tossing around my head lately. People need to justify their jobs, their existence, and their “fight.” I beleve in the core principals of their fight, just not how they are going about fighting it. If you’re a writer these days, you need to fight for clicks, make sure you fit the right narrative, not say one wrong word, and so on. And as society has become more and more open, new enemies must be found and things to replace the old evils that are now largely (not completely) already addressed. The worst part is this, to me: Everyone in the media seems to want to one up everyone else in what they can find wrong with something. Another enemy, another problem. I agree that there are problems but this mad dash to point the finger is nauseating, and often becomes innacurate, as you have pointed out. It’s almost so obvious that it’s visual. Like people rushing to look under rocks and say “Hey everyone, look what I found!” Hoepfully most people will see through that at some point.
Jim Z.
September 29, 2018 @ 7:29 am
what A load of hooey
this writer should just continue to write about supposed country artists that nobody’s ever heard of and probably never will and leave the politics to someone a lot more educated.
ScottG
September 29, 2018 @ 9:06 am
One of the worst, and most uninformed comments I’ve see here. Congrats!
Colter
September 29, 2018 @ 9:11 am
You must be one of those retards.
Dylan Schenker
September 29, 2018 @ 11:21 am
I feel like this needs to be said, and gets said, a million times.
To use this song as an example of that thing that needs to get said a million times, the idea of choosing not to sleep with someone in the most general, broad way possible IS A POLITICAL DECISION. THAT IS THE DEFINITION OF POLITICS.
I love this site but I really don’t understand how you define politics at all. Literally everything you do in relation to other people is politics. That is what politics is. You have a set of preferences that guide the way you behave in relation to other people, society, culture, environments. That is politics. It is literally unavoidable to be “political”. Everything you write, sing, perform, behave, is based on a set of preferences that are being projected into the world and are interacting with other people’s preferences. THAT’S POLITICS.
ScottG
September 29, 2018 @ 12:03 pm
I feel like that needs to be said 1 less time, because…semantics.
Trigger
September 29, 2018 @ 12:45 pm
This comment is so misguided, it truly shakes me to my core. The idea that it’s not our common humanity that binds us together and imparts to everyone that each human should be treated with dignity, but an artifice of civilization that didn’t even enter into human history until very recently in the grand scheme of things, is so diseased and misguided, I would guess most political scientists would even refute it, except for the ones working to radicalizing the world populous at the moment and the media members helping them to ensure job security. Politics has its necessary function in society. But to say that’s where the ethics of man spring from or dwell is so incredibly misguided, I can’t think of greater evidence to cite as to how today’s political mindset has become a scourge and contagion.
Protecting women is universal. It predates politics, or even civilization. And if we can’t find commonality in that verdict, and at least identify that even our enemies hold that truth to be self-evident, we’re even more fucked than I had previously feared.
Politics is sport.
Dylan Schenker
September 29, 2018 @ 12:59 pm
I feel like you’re still defining politics in relation to my explanation in an incredibly narrow way. You’re calling politics stuff government does. Politics is emotions. Politics is just having a conversation. It is literally just existing. You can’t “predate politics”. The act of interacting is political. Ideas emerging out of interaction. Ideas clashing with each other. Ideas mixing and fusing with each other. You’re assuming some kind of definition that is in contrast to what I am saying. The sentence and the idea therein “protecting women is universal” a stance you are taking. An idea you are articulating out into the world.
Every time you do, say, act, write, behave a certain way it is having an impact on the world regardless of your intent. You are shaping the world and the world is shaping you. You aren’t an island. Nobody lives in a vacuum.
ScottG
September 29, 2018 @ 1:06 pm
Sociology: The scientific study of society, patterns of social relationships, social interaction, and culture of everyday life.
Politics: The activities associated with the governance of a country or other area, especially the debate or conflict among individuals or parties having or hoping to achieve power.
Semantics: A semantic dispute is a disagreement that arises if the parties involved disagree about the definition of a word or phrase, not because they disagree on material facts, but rather because they disagree on the definitions of a word (or several words) essential to formulating the claim at issue.
Cool Lester Smooth
September 30, 2018 @ 6:03 pm
There’s also this definition, lower down on the Merriam-Webster page:
Politics: the total complex of relations between people living in society.
Art and kitsch can be most easily differentiated through whether they engage with that definition of “Politics.”
ScottG
September 30, 2018 @ 7:02 pm
“Lower down.” Uh, yeah, WAY lower down. What does that tell you? Whatever…for the 3rd time, this is arguing semantics anyway…oh wait I beg your pardon: This is “engaging” in semantics. Good catch though.
Cool Lester Smooth
October 3, 2018 @ 6:55 am
There’s nothing inherently wrong with semantics, haha.
It’s impossivle to have a meaningful discussion if you’re not using the same definitions.
King Honky Of Crackershire
September 29, 2018 @ 7:16 pm
Trigger,
I’d say protecting women should be universal, but it isn’t; it depends on what culture you’re in.
Leftists can’t make their minds up about what that even means.
Out of one side of leftists’ mouths, women are basically walking around so weak, and pitifully filled with dread that they might be randomly raped at any moment, even when yes does mean yes, or when the woman initiates sex while intoxicated.
Protecting women means assuming every woman is too stupid, weak-minded, and emotionally fragile to deal with her own decisions.
Out of the middle of leftists’ mouths, men and women are identical in every conceivable way, which means that women are just as capable of doing the raping.
Protecting women means not protecting them. Why would they need protection when they can and should protect themselves?
Out of the other side of leftists’ mouths, men are so superior to women, that a man can dress like a woman and receive credit for being a better woman at any given activity than actual women.
Protecting women means protecting men who want to be women.
None of these positions are sane, they all contradict each other, and in every one, women lose.
Kyle
September 29, 2018 @ 12:04 pm
Trig, you say, “What’s so important and unique about “Drunk Girl” is that it canonizes the guy who sees a girl who has thrown her life on the floor (as the lyrics say), and makes the conscious decision not to sleep with her, even though he can, and with consent.” Further, you say, “When a man sees a woman in a vulnerable position, but is still willing to give consent, they never get credit if they decide to walk away. No blue ribbons are handed out. There’s no blurbs about it in the paper.”
From my perspective, the comments quoted above imply a pretty significant misunderstanding of criminal law. In most states, when heavily intoxicated, an individual cannot legally consent to sex. So, in “Drunk Girl,” once the girl has become heavily intoxicated and has “thrown her life on the floor,” as the lyrics say, potential “suitors” can no longer have sex with her legally. I don’t know why you think any “credit” is due to men who follow the law–most of us follow the law every day, and few have any “blue ribbons” to show for it.
Corncaster
September 30, 2018 @ 6:07 am
There’s no medal implied at all here.
The song is about how you treat people who f*** up. Yes, they lost it, but don’t leave them on the floor. Care for them. Let them know you don’t think they’re worthless. That’s how that person will know you see the situation maturely.
CountryKnight
October 1, 2018 @ 1:59 pm
Trigger made a great point. Each day, hundreds, if not thousands of men, do the right thing and do not take advantage of an intoxicated women. But when a few choice cases catch the media’s fancy, men everywhere are cast as barely controllable sex addicts.
I don’t believe that people deserve recognition for doing the right thing. It should be done because it is the right thing but the current environment is hostile on college campuses, in editorials, in the public sphere. One false allegation can destroy a man’s life. We have social media abuzz with the phrase, “believe women” just because they are women.
Listen, the song in question is like a medieval morality tale. It is blunt and and anvilicious in its delivery because its intent is education not be the next great postmodern novel. The narrator is canonized as the saint to prove a point. Ambiguous in his actions might improve the song from a critical level but Janson is aiming in a different direction.
Andrew J. Persac
May 14, 2019 @ 9:55 pm
Except of course if the perpetrator (rapist, etc.) comes from a certain party, it gets dismissed, covered over, hushed up, ignored, etc…..
Anne-Ominous
October 2, 2018 @ 4:07 pm
Leftists leftist-leftists. Behold the bogeyman. It says more about you than you realize when you construct your own enemy so you have somewhere custom made to direct your ire.
Saving Bro Country Music
October 3, 2018 @ 6:41 am
What you’re saying isn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s zeroing in on the wrong part of the story.
When it comes to the bar scene, everyone’s aware of easy targets. The bachelorette party girls that get drunk and desperate because they’re jealous of their friend who’s getting married. The girls who are bouncing from guy to guy on the dance floor for the sake of getting attention. The girls who want a rebound from a bad breakup. There was literally an episode of How I Met Your Mother dedicated to the idea of “Desperation Day” — the day before Valentine’s Day when girls are desperately looking for a guy. Wedding Crashers talks about opportunities to find girls at their most desperate/most vulnerable.
Guys, as I believe has been covered in this thread, also have their own “macho” culture. The idea that “getting her to come home” is the hardest part, and that you’re a real loser if you don’t seal the deal once she’s there.
And this song is combating THOSE elements of culture. A real man sees an easy/vulnerable target as someone worth protecting rather than someone to exploit. A real man takes pride in saying “no” — and risking a hookup — if the situation doesn’t feel right, even if he already has her in his or her bedroom.
With these songs, everyone forgets that the songwriter gets to create the entire narrative. So you can presume that A) she’s DTF going into the night, and specifically into the guy once she meets him B) still capable of consenting and C) unlikely to personally identify the situation as assault.
So if you’re dwelling on that side to the song, you’re missing Janson’s point … and also missing out on a valuable message.
Trigger
October 3, 2018 @ 7:16 am
Good comment.
TAMARA VENCATO NORTHWAY
September 29, 2018 @ 4:16 pm
Flat up…the article just sold more albums!! N
TAMARA VENCATO NORTHWAY
September 29, 2018 @ 4:18 pm
..
Jake
September 29, 2018 @ 6:15 pm
Can’t say I care to much for the song but compared to allot of the songs on pop country radio it’s one of the few that actually made an impression, not for the song but the message. People got too much time on their hands, or they are knit pick. My folks raised me a certain way, right and wrong, be a good man. Far as I can tell this falls into the former category. It might be a little sappy but it has amoral to it and it sticks it home. Anyone finding fault with this are the same assholes that get passed off at keeping score in little league.
CountryKnight
September 30, 2018 @ 6:50 am
Like with any song or movie, if you nitpick hard enough, you will find “flaws.” Especially in a song that requires rhymes. I judge media on this basis: on my initial impression is there anything super outrageous or poisonous? “Drunk Girl” is a basic morality tale stating, “listen guys, it is not right to take advantage of an intoxicated woman.” In an era where sex is cheaply sold in backlit bars, it is a valuable lesson. Because many people are growing up without being taught basic values.
You have to look at what the song is saying not what you think the song is saying. That is the problem with these writers and professors. They apply concepts to material that doesn’t entertain those motions. Janson wrote a good, simple tale of right and wrong. He wasn’t trying to make the male narrator a saint or imply that women can’t be independent.
And I say this as a former English major. Sometimes, the curtains are just blue.
LG
September 30, 2018 @ 9:50 am
When an artist WANTS to delve into politics they can choose to do so. This is what Isbell, Sturgill, Margo, etc. do. This isn’t a problem. The problem is when outsiders try to force politics on artists who do not wish to be political. A song can be just a song. It’s ok.
Think-pieces suck.
Trigger
September 30, 2018 @ 10:04 am
Totally agree. Sometimes when people complain about the political incursion into music, they think we’re trying to limit artists’ freedom of speech. An artist can do whatever they want. They also have to understand that if the broach the wrong subject in the wrong way, they run the risk of parsing their fan base in two and alienating a lot of the audience they’re trying to court with their message. But very rarely is someone expressly stating “Shut up and sing.” With what happened with Eric Church recently in Rolling Stone, the Willie Nelson issue where the media tried to portray his support of Beto ORorke as unprecedented, or now this mischaracterization of “Drunk Girl” and conflating it wit a contentious political issue, it’s gotten way out-of-hand, and regardless of what side of the political aisle you fall, we should all agree with how polarizing politics is at the moment, it isn’t fair to artists to put words into their mouths, or move them around to fit what the media wants them to mean, as opposed to what the artist intended.
Chase
September 30, 2018 @ 10:49 am
I am not a big fan of Chris Janson at all but I like this song. This is true, it takes a real man to walk away from a one night stand especially with the repercussions that could happen later. Great song by Chris Janson and I applaud him for releasing this song. How anybody can turn that around like the New Yorker did is really confusing.
Tangelox
October 1, 2018 @ 8:16 am
Don’t know this song, but she may have been looking for rich o tooles drunk girl.
Clyde
October 1, 2018 @ 9:42 am
Can’t believe you got your panties up in a bunch over the New Yorker article.
All she said was that the song almost become too radical to play on radio, not that radio stopped playing it. She found it hard to swallow that Janson preaches the right thing in the song yet endorses a guy with multiple allegations of sexual misconduct and audio of him admitting to it (locker room talk stuff). Well yeah, I can see her point.
And in the end what she says about the song is pretty accurate. Its, simplistic, sappy, overly sincere. Not a good Country advice song. Her analysis reminds me of the Chris Rock skit about brothers in the neighborhood bragging about and wanting credit for for stuff they do or don’t do, “I take care of my kids!” and “I ain’t never been to jail.” Well duh, that’s what you’re supposed to do.
Clyde
October 1, 2018 @ 9:46 am
But she did make the dumb remark about Isbell being the greatest “Country” artist alive today.
CountryKnight
October 1, 2018 @ 1:50 pm
Yet, the author in question, is probably a Bill Clinton supporter.
Nan
October 2, 2018 @ 4:52 pm
Thanks, Trigger for this article and all the info you included, and the video. Agree 100% about the author being wrong here. It seems the overwhelming–liberal media today can’t be trusted to ever give Country Music the benefit of the doubt if something is in question.
My opinion of the song—- As another commenter said, he could have called it something else and made a point, without it being how the gal is ‘described’ in a negative way. Also, calling her a ‘Girl’–it might be common but I never like it. The title itself felt a bit demeaning to me.
Kyle, who posted Sept. 29th, 12:04pm, I think is 100% correct. If a woman is not sober enough to make the choice it is wrong for someone to pursue that, even with ‘consent’…………..”Potential suitors can no longer have sex with her legally”. There have been stories in the news these past years about this.
I know this view is different from most, even ‘weird’ today, but I know there are people who share it—-How about ‘Sober Gal’, be a man and walk away after knowing someone only a few hours. The song seems to imply free-love and hook-ups all around. You only know about the person what they Showed You the past few hours. Not that there is an ex-boyfriend or ex-husband waiting for you both. Or that they will be using you, and you will never hear from them again. (This can happen to guys also, of course). Or they will become so clingy, you will wish you never met them. Or more serious, turn into an obsession that has been a news story also. There are some ‘happily ever afters’ that started as a one-night stand. And there are people who view sex as merely recreational, are always respectful, with the mutual understanding of nothing more. But if either person likes the other, hoping for a chance at something that matters, it’s better for both people to wait until you actually know who you are sleeping with.
Nan
October 4, 2018 @ 3:41 pm
For whoever reads the comment I wanted to say these situations are none I’ve been in, but I know people who have, or they were news stories. I included them to let people know (at least some) of the negative that can result. The mention of a person being used happened to a guy friend of mine. It was a great time, he really liked the gal, and she wanted nothing to do with him after that (yes women act like that also). Aside from how bad it felt, it affected how he viewed women afterward, with trust issues that lasted.
I know this article above isn’t about what someone thinks about a ‘one-night stand’. It’s about the song lyrics, re: the guy acting ‘right’ bec he walked away from someone drunk, implying he’s doing the ‘right thing’. That’s what I dislike most about the song, that it implies it’s okay to have a one-night stand if both are sober. I really think this sends esp. very young people such a wrong messege. I realize my opinion isn’t shared by most, and I’m not passing judgment to those who disagree. It is important for people to understand there are many risks involved, though, with this behavior, (not all mentioned here) even if both were sober.
Ann Stokman
October 5, 2018 @ 2:08 am
I really like it.
UrbaneFrancoOntarien
October 5, 2018 @ 9:21 am
Oh shit, the “blue checkmark” crowd is involved in country journalism too?? I’m glad I don’t follow mainstream country journalism then…
I’m right wing like most country fans, but honestly I just want to enjoy music. Stop bothering me about politics all the time. People are just tuning out. The truth is that people barely listen to the country radio anymore. All the country boys are listening to songs before 2010 anyways.
Greg29
October 11, 2018 @ 12:01 pm
One of the amazing things the internet has done is allowed journalistically untrained bloggers, pajamaed or otherwise, to demonstrate how little journalists often actually know or how little sense they actually make. As well as how unintrosepctive most seem to be.
They really are the least curious and introspective group of people I’m aware of. It’s so bad that journalism really can’t be called a profession anymore since they seem to have no professional standards.
Jessica
May 14, 2019 @ 7:33 pm
The song basically is saying if you take a drunk girl home and you don’t rape her then you’re a man not a little boy.
No. That makes you a decent human being. There isn’t a damn reward for not raping someone.
It is also saying that “she’ll be so grateful she’ll call you up” in so many words. Yes there are other songs that are just as bad in other genres (Blurred Lines, anyone?) but this is still one of the bad ones.
lyndsay
May 15, 2019 @ 4:31 am
If a woman is so drunk that someone else needs to take her home to make sure she is safe she can’t consent.
“When a man sees a woman in a vulnerable position, but is still willing to give consent, they never get credit if they decide to walk away. No blue ribbons are handed out. There’s no blurbs about it in the paper. They can’t even take to social media and brag about it, because their Bro buddies would probably chastise them for being weak, stupid, or a “pussy.” ”
Vulnerable yet can give consent. Whut?
Pats on the back or credit for walking away. Are men really this fragile?
“Daughters, sisters, mothers, and nieces. Seeing them in the eyes of a woman you may encounter at a bar is what “Drunk Girl” is all about.”
How about just human beings instead of needing to link their identity with men in order to hunanize them?
The fact that this song is a hit actually highlights how badly the #metoo movement needs to continue. The fact this song is a hit – wow.
Ruralsarepooflingers
May 17, 2019 @ 12:20 pm
Country music is worse than dubstep and needs to die quickly, like Hip Hop did
Gina
July 30, 2019 @ 9:27 am
Now that the Kavanaugh hearing has faded from view, the fact remains the song is creepy as hell. No, it’s not the difference between a “boy and a man,” it’s the difference between a predator and a non-predator, a rapist and a non-rapist, criminal and a non-criminal. If Janson didn’t sing the lyrics so earnestly perhaps that would be more obvious to the clearly obtuse author. And I’ll compare my country music fan cred against ANYBODY. Stop tilting at windmills Trigger and see predatory rationalization for what it is…evil.
Henry Mauve
March 11, 2020 @ 1:39 pm
It’s clumsy and preachy and yes, just like the majority of christian rock. And that’s just the tone of the art-part of things – the song itself. The message communicated is that you should get a prize for not taking advantage of a drunk person. What a crock of shit. Sadly, that’s the state that we’re in. And half the country can’t seem to understand that. “Well hell boy, yer a man today cuz you let that girl be.” Yeah, fuck that.