> >  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.
> > 
> 	Censorship? No, it's commerce. It's the very *raison d'etre* of why
> people boycott and demonstrate -- to throw around their economic weight as
> consumers. In that regard, it's no different than Cesar Chavez and the
> lettuce and grape boycotts of the sixties at the other end of the
> political
> spectrum. Radio stations in places like Dallas and Jacksonville acted out
> of
> fear (precipitously, in my opinion) that if they continued to play Dixie
> Chicks songs that they'd be boycotted and their ratings would suffer. By
> wrapping themselves in the flag in their press releases, those radio
> stations got out in front of the issue and upped the ante on their
> country-station competitors (or so they thought). As has been noted ad
> infinitum on Audities, radio stations are run by corporations whose only
> real interest lies in the cold calculation of the balance sheet. 
> 
> > > >  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.
> > 
> 	An information medium that has not exactly established a track
> record for establishing a highbrow cultural dialectic. If my pointing that
> out is elitist, then so be it.
> 
> > > > 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 didn't, and don't. I'm not a fan of any of the three acts in
> question.
> >  
> > 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.
> > 
> 	Timing hardly constitutes proof in this case. There have been a
> plethora of patriotically-themed country songs over the years (Lee
> Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A." leaps to mind), so it's not as though
> Keith's and Worley's songs arose in a genre-bound vacuum. There may have
> been opportunism in the marketing strategies of their labels -- selecting
> those specific songs as singles, for example -- but even if that's true,
> it
> hardly indicts Keith and Worley themselves of opportunism. Were they
> supposed to ask their respective labels to hold back on releasing those
> songs as singles just to avoid being subjected to accusations from
> antagonistic country listeners of milking a star-spangled trend?
> 
> 	Yes, it's your opinion, to which you have the right. But I see more
> bias in that opinion than proof.
> 
> >  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.
> > 
> 	No, but if the topic suited her and one gives her credit for
> integrity and a willingness to voice her opinions I have no doubt that she
> would record such a song. The fact that the anti-war stance was a minority
> opinion in America certainly didn't stop Fleetwood Mac, R.E.M., the
> Beastie
> Boys, etc., from recording new anti-war (and in some cases explicitly
> anti-Bush) songs. You can argue that the innate conservatism of C&W's
> listener base (although I think Mike Bennett's right that country music
> per
> se is generally populist rather than conservative) militates against
> someone
> such as Maines recording such a song. But if such a song never gets
> written,
> much less recorded, upon whom is the onus?
> 
> > > >  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.
> > 
> 	Again, it's a matter of juxtaposition. Immediately following the
> words "feel-good jingoism", in a discussion of Keith's and Worley's
> intentions, you launched into your, "But the Dixie Chicks are making
> country
> music the right way ..." statement about artistic merit. In other words,
> your context begged the question.
> 
> > >  Artistic
> > >merit does not validate the belief system of the artist, or vice-versa.
> > 
> > Thanks, I was unclear on that.
> > 
> 	Your sarcasm aside, I'm glad that we agree about that. It's hardly a
> universally-accepted truth among people who listen to music.
> 
> > >         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?
> > 
> 	Hearing plenty of it every night. IPO Chicago is wrapping up its
> first week tonight at Schubas. I was out of town during last Saturday's
> and
> Sunday's shows, but I've been there for every show other than those.
> 
> > Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 12:49:44 -0500
> > From: Miles Goosens <outdoorminer@mindspring.com>
> > To: audities@smoe.org
> > Subject: Re: Dixie Chicks on EW
> > Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.2.20030425123947.03693580@pop.mindspring.com>
> > 
> > Thanks to Bill Silvers for saying everything in his last few posts
> > (defending the Dixie Chicks, rebutting Greg Sager, and being nice to the
> > always-welcome-please-contribute-more Elizabeth Brion) that I was
> thinking
> > about saying, except he said it all twice as well as I would have.
> > 
> > Nevertheless, here's two parts of Bill's latest to which I have brief
> > responses:
> > >> >  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.
> > 
> > Exactly.  And who's more likely to give the Chicks a forum, EW or THE
> > JOURNAL OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS?
> > 
> 	The point isn't who gives the Chicks a forum. The point is whether
> or not that forum is a likely repository for what Bill called "some
> intellectual discourse or its reasonable facsimile".
> 
> > >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.
> > 
> > I've only heard the one Cary song on the latest Yep Roc! sampler, liked
> > it, and plan to get her CDs this weekend, but on the basis of just that
> > one song, she'd be the most artistically successful former member of
> > Whiskeytown.  Reminds me, I'm overdue to put PNEUMONIA in the "sell"
> pile
> > (GOLD is long gone).
> > 
> > waiting for the Natalie-edited issue of DISSENT,
> > 
> 	It certainly couldn't hurt *Dissent*'s sales. Especially if she
> poses naked on the cover.
> 
> 
> 	Gregory Sager