smoe.org mailing lists
ivan@stellysee.de
| From | Bill Silvers <wsilvers@earthlink.net> |
| Subject | Re: Dixie Chicks on EW |
| Date | Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:29:18 -0500 |
[Part 1 text/plain us-ascii (7.4 kilobytes)]
(View Text in a separate window)
Greg Sager concluded:
>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.
But by golly, it was important to get equal time in there, wasn't it?
I managed to get through the last month and a half without having or even
doing much reading of the plethora of political threads
of the various music discussion lists I'm on, but I am going to rebut a
couple of things you said:
> > 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.
How in hell are the opinions of most folks I know, who to some degree or
another are ashamed to have George Bush as our president, "elitist?" You
don't know me or the people I'm talking about, but you are off to a great
start rhetorically.
> 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.
I didn't say a thing about whether the Chicks critics were entitled to
their opinions, because of course they are, it goes without saying but to
attempt to construct a straw man in a debate.
>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.
Ignorant? You betcha. I don't think that radio station-organized
demonstrations where fans burned concert tickets
and CD's represents the triumph of reason over emotion. And when the result
of the demonstrations was to have the Chicks removed from station playlists
and radio airwaves, that is censorship, plain and simple. Hardly
un-American? Whatever you say.
> > 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".
Who's "elitist" now? It's an information medium like any other.
> > 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.
I didn't claim that my admission was anything but politically inspired and
implied as much right up front. If you want to debate the merits of Toby
Keith and Darryl Worley's recordings vis a vis the Chicks, go right ahead.
I think Keith's a good singer, but the swagger and most of the musical
content leave me pretty cold. Worley's somebody who I've always pulled for,
and whose neo-trad sound is among the better things in the country
mainstream these days. Neither are as artistically successful as the
Chicks, let alone commercially, though ubiquitous Toby is certainly making
a run these days. Nonetheless, it's my opinion that releasing (what you
refer to as patriotic-themed songs and I'd continue to call jingoistic
justifications) singles to the commercial market (Keith's unequivically,
Worley's only somewhat less so) at times like these is nothing more or less
than opportunism. Maybe if Keith and Worley had only performed these tunes
at live concerts I could buy the argument that it's patriotism pure and
simple, but the commercial element says different. Natalie Maines didn't
cut a single about her shame at George Bush's being a Texan (for some
reason...golly, wonder why?), unless I missed something here.
> > 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?
Nothing, and I wasn't attempting to say it did. See above for my opinion of
Keith and Worley's artistic merits.
> Artistic
>merit does not validate the belief system of the artist, or vice-versa.
Thanks, I was unclear on that.
> 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.
I'm done if you are, and even if you're not. Heard any great music lately,
Mr. Sager? Caitlin Cary's new record, I'M STAYING OUT,
is terrific and maybe the best thing I've heard yet this year. It's not
insanely great pop (Chris Stamey did a stellar job on the production,
FWIW), but it is a really entrancing mix of alt-country with R+B, rock and
folk. Cary's now the most artistically successful former member of Whiskeytown.
b.s.
For assistance, please contact
the smoe.org administrators.