Dixie Chicks movie

MysticSang'ha said:

And not all voices of dissent get that targeted, either. I don't see George Carlin's opinion receiving this kind of attention, and his stance against Bush is FAR more hateful and spiteful than Natalie's. I won't throw out the likelihood that celebreties get death threats, but hardly any of them were condemned in the manner that the Dixie Chicks were...

Click to expand...

The reason they got different responses is that Dixie Chicks and George Carlin target different audiences.

Carlin's audiences expect him to be irreverant and a bit caustic. He is a bit crass at times, but he can also be incredibly accurate and funny. :biglaugh:

The Chick's base of country music fans are all about God, family, and country. At a time when many stations were playing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" almost hourly, Natalie's rant and subsuquent comments were seen as unpatriotic.

I was about to give an example, but I don't want to feed any stereotypes. Try this...think of a certain style of music and the people who enjoy it. Now imagine an artist who makes that kind of music publicly criticizing something near and dear to those fans. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that artist might face some backlash? True, it has been extreme in the case of the Chicks, but not entirely unexpected.

Hmmmm....I seem to have heard this somewhere before.

CaptainXeroid said:

Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that artist might face some backlash? True, it has been extreme in the case of the Chicks, but not entirely unexpected.

Click to expand...

No, and I'll tell you why. The Dixie Chicks ARE the people who listened to them. They ARE country. They ARE patriotic. They ALSO love God and country. They're the same as the people who were listening to and buying their music. So when they expressed their disappointment with Bush, they didn't know that they were expressing anything contrary to their own fan's beliefs. And that's why they were so shocked and hurt by the reaction. They honestly didn't know that some of the people buying their music were so narrow-minded and nasty. And I don't believe those people would have been that stupid and nasty, had it not been for the conservative media blowhards stirring up as much anger and hatred as possible.

I think the awards going to the Dixie Chicks, now, are basically in recognition of their having the courage to be themselves, in spite of the bile that was being stirred up against them. And they deserve it.

angellous_evangellous said:

Nobody cares about George Carlin. Also, he's not a best-selling country singer, and you can't sell magazines with naked pictures of him on the cover. He's not popular and he's not sexy.

Click to expand...

So what?



I'll throw in another celebrity if it'll make you feel better. I never saw Oprah Winfrey go through the same treatment that the Chicks went through after her public critcisms of the Bush administration's handling of the Katrina disaster. And there were many conservative radio shows either dismissing the charges of underlying racism or defending the administrations decisions in it's wake. I'd say that Oprah is a much bigger influence and more highly respected across the board than the Dixie Chicks.



I still contend that the Dixie Chicks went through more than was really necessary. They became a very convenient target for a lot of people, and these kinds of targeting strategies are ones that I'd don't necessarily find to be of much benefit, and in fact do more harm than good.



Peace,
Mystic

MysticSang'ha said:

So what?

Click to expand...

I think that we may have the same point.

I don't have any sympathy whatsoever for celebrities that get hounded by stupid people for the stupid things that they say - or in rare cases - for the intelligent things that they say.

I think it's anti-American to equate criticism against the president with being anti-American.

American patriotism is fast sliding into fascism.

Bush's approval rating after Katrina was nowhere near as high as it was when the Chicks made their comment. Also, no one has a higher approval rating then Oprah, especially on her own show (in other words people who watch Oprah generally tend to agree with Oprah).

CaptainXeroid said:

The reason they got different responses is that Dixie Chicks and George Carlin target different audiences.

Carlin's audiences expect him to be irreverant and a bit caustic. He is a bit crass at times, but he can also be incredibly accurate and funny. :biglaugh:

The Chick's base of country music fans are all about God, family, and country. At a time when many stations were playing Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" almost hourly, Natalie's rant and subsuquent comments were seen as unpatriotic.

I was about to give an example, but I don't want to feed any stereotypes. Try this...think of a certain style of music and the people who enjoy it. Now imagine an artist who makes that kind of music publicly criticizing something near and dear to those fans. Wouldn't it be reasonable to think that artist might face some backlash? True, it has been extreme in the case of the Chicks, but not entirely unexpected.

Click to expand...

I see your point, CX, and I don't want to feed any stereotypes either. Perhaps my bringing other celebrities into the argument doesn't do the issue justice, so I'll simply remain in my opinion that what the Dixie Chicks went through was unwarranted. They didn't see some backlash. They were dragged through hell and back. You and I agree that it certainly was extreme, but while you might not find that much fault with it, I do.



I admit that I have a certain soft spot for them in my heart because I'm a performance artist, too. And I don't know how strong I would be if a tremendous wave of anti-MysticSang'ha were to wash over the general public just because I said I was "ashamed" of the current administration. I say one phrase, and for months and years I am condemned in the public eye. Much different than people simply walking out of the theatre (I can accept that). Much different than people telling me they hate my work (I can accept that). Much different than people telling me they will never see my work again (I can accept that, too).



We as artists understand that we have certain responsibilities to our viewing public (especially to captive audiences, but I digress), but those responsibilities should never outweigh our freedom to voice dissent.




Peace,
Mystic

MysticSang'ha said:

I see your point, CX, and I don't want to feed any stereotypes either. Perhaps my bringing other celebrities into the argument doesn't do the issue justice, so I'll simply remain in my opinion that what the Dixie Chicks went through was unwarranted. They didn't see some backlash. They were dragged through hell and back. You and I agree that it certainly was extreme, but while you might not find that much fault with it, I do.

Click to expand...

Read my post #20 (its at the very bottom of page 2)

I also disagree with the contention that because the artist has a certain target audience that he or she needs to pander to them on all fronts. Of course, I thought Natalie's statement was rather like the foot-in-mouth one, but I don't understand why some would honestly think that they somehow got what they deserved.



I guess that would make book-burning and other forms of censorship understandable if that kind of media irritated enough people. Mob rule, anyone?



Peace,
Mystic

spacemonkey said:

The reason the Dixie Chicks recieved such a backlash over their statement (as opposed to Carlin, Bill Maher, or other political humorists) is because their fanbase at the time was made up of the same people who approved of Bush. People who go to see George Carlin get what they expect and therefore are not insulted by it. I'm not 100% positive, but I believe the concert where the Chicks first made the comment was in Texas, where at that time George Bush's approval rating was higher then Sam Houston's. You have to know your audience. Expecting that crowd to agree with what they said would be like yelling "white power" at an NAACP meeting and not expecting to get your *** beat.

Click to expand...

Hmmm, I guess you're OK with the NAACP lynching a White Power activist? I'm not. I think in this scenario the White Power activist is rather dumb, but I wouldn't cheer on getting his *** beat.



Also, the Dixie Chicks are artists (although some might not see them as legitimate artists LOL), and they held a performance that had doors opened for others. Your scenario is a different situation altogether where the doors are only open to like-minded individuals seeking political action toward a common goal. To see performance artists in the same light as being members of an organization where only like-mindedness is accepted is to disenfranchise the whole concept of performance art in the first place. People have a right to be offended. But they don't have a right to enact that kind of vengeance.




I find it odd that so many here who agree have no problem with the backlash have problems with the Dixie Chicks comments and timing of their comments. What was so attractive about the response but not the initial comment in question?



OK, I know I said that bringing other artists into the picture might not be a good idea, but I'm throwing in another perspective:


Tupac Shakur. Did he get what he deserved? There are surprisingly a number of people who say "yes." I am not one of them.



Peace,
Mystic

First off all, where did I condone the lyching of anyone? I was mearly using a more black and white (puntastic) example of what denouncing Bush at the height of his popularity in his home state at a country music concert is equivelant too. I also not trying to say they got what they desereved, rather they should have known that something like what happened was possible given the circumstances. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

BTW, Tupac was killed by Suge Knight for trying to leave Death Row records after Suge had spent millons on his legal defense.

But that's one for a whole other thread...

PureX said:

I think the awards going to the Dixie Chicks, now, are basically in recognition of their having the courage to be themselves, in spite of the bile that was being stirred up against them. And they deserve it.

Click to expand...

So, in effect, you are saying that their recent Grammy awards were given for politcal rather than artistic merit. Doesn't that contain a teeny weeny smack of pandering? Shouldn't musical award be bestowed on the very best musicians for their brilliant artistry rather than for their political convictions? Perhaps I am missing something here.

Sorry, to me, the Chixie Dicks are a mediocre talent at best and hardly deserving of what is perhaps regarded as the music industry's highest honors. Smells like political opportunism to me.

spacemonkey said:

First off all, where did I condone the lyching of anyone? I was mearly using a more black and white (puntastic) example of what denouncing Bush at the height of his popularity in his home state at a country music concert is equivelant too. I also not trying to say they got what they desereved, rather they should have known that something like what happened was possible given the circumstances. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor.

Click to expand...

It certainly sounded like you condoned lynching when comparing it to the demonization of the Dixie Chicks by a certain demographic. I apologize if my response offended you, since that's not the direction I want to take the debate.



Also, I can't see their public dissent being all that outrageous. Natalie simply said, "I'm ashamed that the president is from Texas." She didn't tell everyone to become a member of the Democratic party, to leave the state and become New Yorkers, to throw out their Bibles or even to picket the Capital. There was no rallying cry for the masses...........just one simple statement.



I guess I'm rather surprised that there are people who have no sympathy for the Dixie Chicks and their boo-hoos but in the same breath can have a lot of sympathy for a mass of people that got their own panties in a bunch. Natalie's comment was stupid and untimely and thoughtless. YES! But the reaction to her stupid comment was even MORE stupid.



I'd wonder what the masses that are pointing fingers at the Dixie Chicks while saying "Get over yourselves" would think if they had a mirror staring right back at them.




Peace,
Mystic

Texans were (and many still are) very proud that Bush is from Texas. They might as well have told them all to become New Yorkers.

YmirGF said:

So, in effect, you are saying that their recent Grammy awards were given for politcal rather than artistic merit. Doesn't that contain a teeny weeny smack of pandering? Shouldn't musical award be bestowed on the very best musicians for their brilliant artistry rather than for their political convictions? Perhaps I am missing something here.

Click to expand...

It takes courage to be an artist, especially in a fascist environment. The awards being given are awards for artistry, and artistry includes courage. I think they deserve the awards, because they are artists, and because they were courageous in the face of fascism.

Other artists this year may have made as good a recordings as the Dixie Chicks, but they did so without having to face death threats and boycots. And that's why I think the Dixie Chicks deserve their awards. Being an artist isn't just about making good music, or theater, or paintings, or whatever. Being an artist comes with a social responsibility, too, that often required real courage. This business with the Dixie Chicks bears that out.

My only complaint about these awards would be to ask where are the awards for artists like Steve Earle, and Ani DiFranco, who have been out there speaking out WAY MORE OVERTLY against Bush war and a host of other social ills for the last two decades? (Actually, now that I think about it, they did give Steve Earle a Grammy for "The Revolution Starts Now" CD, and it was the same year he wrote that song for the kid from California that was caught fighting with the Talliban in Afghanistan.)

YmirGF said:

Sorry, to me, the Chixie Dicks are a mediocre talent at best and hardly deserving of what is perhaps regarded as the music industry's highest honors. Smells like political opportunism to me.

Click to expand...

Fortunately, the awards are not based solely on your taste in music, or mine. Believe me, I dispise most of the music that wins those awards every year. And they only win because a bunch of tone-deaf and artistically retarded12-year-olds bought their CDs. So I was quite pleased to see them give out a Grammy for real courage, for a change, instead of just for music biz profits.

What the old guy at the end of the clip says is hilarious. Can anyone say Soviet Union?

CaptainXeroid said:

:clap Most excellent point that a lot of people do not seem to understand.

Those blasting the Dixie Chicks critics are essentially saying that the Chicks have a right to free speech but the critics do not. That is a most inconsistant and unjust position to take.

For the record...I do listen to country music from time to time, but I did not care for the Chick's lastest CD. Their early music was much better. I realize a lot of anti-Bush folks inflated sales of their latest CD, and they were given Grammys so the music industry could show support for their comeback, but I wonder how well they will do after the hoopla dies down a bit more.

They are getting a bit more airplay in some cities, but not in Hot'Lanta GA. I think one of our pop stations played "I'm Not Ready To Make Nice" when it came out, but I don't think it stuck on their play list. Our country stations keep testing them in market research, but the negative response from prospective listeners is still like 75-80%.

Anyway...the punchline is that free speech works both ways. When you are in the public eye, you can say whatever you want, but you have absolutely no right to expect that those listening to you message should forfeit their free speech and not disagree with you.

Also for the record...I hope the people who made death threats against Natalie Maines are caught and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Just because you disagree with someone does not give you the right to breach that person's life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness.

As for the movie....I don't have a strong burning desire to see it. Last time I checked...I still have that right.

Click to expand...

very well said. I hate bubblegum pop country but I love there music prior to this CD. I too hate that they recieved death threats. No one should have that happen simply because of what they say. And believe it or not I, myself, am a very sceptical critic of Bush's. I voted for him both times and am bitterly disappointed with him. Probably more so than the Chicks.

My big problem is how celebs milk the media and we get so damn over saturated with this celeb or that celeb. And when a celeb does something like this and then just keeps dragging it back into the spotlight as it moves away from them, that's when I get sick of it and ignore them all together.

Never before has so much been made of so little.

A few slightly talented musicians make an out of context statement and fail to realize their market. Even less talented "bimbo talk show hosts" (as Sunstone would put it) feed off this nothingness. The digested bits get dumped on the rest of us.

Meanwhile, many people who are not artists yet devote so much of their time and actually know what they are talking about receive absolutely no time from the media outlets. I tell my friends entering the environmental sciences that what they are doing is great but don't expect to get any notice unless they have a great body or know how to be pretentious.

The Dixie Chicks, Charlie Daniels, whoever. Who cares?

And since when have the grammy's meant anything other than industry devotion? Or the Oscars or any other ridiculous award ceremony. Jethro Tull won a grammy for best heavy metal band in the 90's. I really need their input on stem cell research.