A lot of the reaction to this piece seems to be sidestepping the actual question: do the songs hold up musically? Do they reward repeated listening? Do they create characters, scenes, or emotional space? Do they feel rooted in the tradition they’re drawing from, or are they mainly vehicles for political commentary?
What stands out to me is that many of the strongest defenders of Welles don’t listen to country or folk beyond him. That shows.
In this tradition, politics usually arrive indirectly, through story and voice, and often with skepticism toward liberalism and moral certainty as much as conservatism. That tension is part of what makes the music durable.
That said, the tradition also includes plenty of directly political songs, but they still work as songs first. That’s the difference people seem to be glossing over.
It seems to me that Welles gets protected from critique because people focus on his intentions rather than the work. But intentions don’t make a song interesting, and agreeing with someone politically doesn’t obligate anyone to treat the music as good. Saying a song is thin isn’t an attack on the artist or the audience.
His appearance on Colbert fits this pattern perfectly. It’s protest that flatters the crowd listening to it. Nothing turns inward. Nothing challenges the people applauding. That’s why it travels so well in liberal spaces.
You can take politics seriously and still expect more from the art. That’s all this critique is asking for. That’s all any critique ever asks for. But it’s becoming a lost art.
currincy.substack.com
