smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | "Sager, Greg" <greg.sager@bankofamerica.com> |
| Subject | Re: Dixie Chicks on EW |
| Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2003 11:36:28 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain iso-8859-1 (4.6 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 23:30:03 -0500
> From: Bill Silvers <wsilvers@earthlink.net>
> To: audities@smoe.org
> Subject: Re: Dixie Chicks on EW
> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030424231039.021b0c00@127.0.0.1>
>
> Erm, interesting points, but I don't see what any of it has to do with the
>
> manifest high quality of the Chicks music, the incredible, ignorant,
> un-American and likely career-thwarting backlash to Natalie Maines
> expression of a sentiment that could have been easily uttered by most
> folks
> I know,
>
That "most folks I know" qualifier of yours sounds pretty elitist to
me. Personally, I think that a lot of the Chicks backlash was over the top,
but why are the critics of Maines's anti-Bush statement any less entitled to
their opinions than Maines -- or you? Particularly since she has apologized
for and disavowed the stridency of her original statement, and swears in the
ABC interview that said apology and disavowal was not forced upon her by her
record company or management. That gives more credence to Maines's critics,
although as I said I think that some of them tended to be too hyperbolic for
my tastes.
Was the backlash "career-thwarting"? Possibly, since the article to
which Sam Smith linked doesn't really give any data for how the band's
ticket and record sales have fared since the whole hullabaloo began. It
certainly does indicate just how hugely popular the Dixie Chicks were at
that fateful moment in London, which is why the statement by Maines was able
to engender such a huge media uproar in the first place. "Incredible,
ignorant"? Sez you. It's an opinion, just like everyone else's. But
"un-American"? Hardly. Maines's critics were doing exactly what Maines was
doing herself, which was exercising their First Amendment rights. Freedom of
speech does not mean freedom from having the content of that speech
criticized. And that includes stuff like demonstrations and boycotts, both
time-tested forms of First Amendment expression on both sides of the
political spectrum.
> or the Chicks attempt to do some damage control in Entertainment
> Weekly. I imagine there will be some intellectual discourse or its
> reasonable facsimile in the magazine, interesting art direction choices
> for
> the cover aside.
>
In *Entertainment Weekly*? I wouldn't hold my breath, unless you
have a pretty broad definition of "reasonable facsimile".
> Honestly, I guess I probably wouldn't have much trouble with peripheral
> sniping at country artists like Toby Keith or Darryl Worley, who've
> clearly
> taken the political situation as an opportunity to score points with the
> public and boost their careers through feel-good jingoism.
>
Wait a minute. Who are you to judge the intentions of Keith and
Worley? Why is the sincerity of artists who hold a different political
position to yours suspect, while those with whom you agree (Maines) get
plaudits such as "a triumph of art with commerce"? Where is the fairness in
that? Or do you have firsthand knowledge that Keith and Worley are releasing
patriotic-themed songs as a cynical marketing ploy? Frankly, I think that
the Golden Rule and the principle "innocent until proven guilty" entitles
Keith and Worley to every bit the presumption of sincerity regarding their
political stances as Maines deserves regarding hers.
> But the Dixie
> Chicks are making modern country music the right way, with traditional
> country sounds that have achieved preeminence in a country music
> marketplace that has by and large little to do with traditional sounds and
>
> more to do with 70's and 80's pop and rock.
>
Why "but"? What does the putative artistic merits of Keith, Worley,
and/or the Dixie Chicks have to do with their political beliefs? Artistic
merit does not validate the belief system of the artist, or vice-versa.
> If you're among those who care
> at all about country music, the Chicks have been a triumph of art with
> commerce. Is it the commerce, or just country music that inspires the
> sneers?
>
It looks to me as though the sneering says as much about the sneerer
as it does the sneered.
Look, I certainly don't want this to become a political discussion.
We've had too many of them on Audities lately, and I think that they both
taint the bonhomie of the list and digress from the list's avowed intention
as a pop music forum. I simply think that there should be some
even-handedness when discussing the utterances of musicians and their fans,
whatever their validity. Country musicians and fans deserve that sort of
consideration just as much as do the musicians and fans of pop music.
Gregory Sager
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.