Skip

Rubber Chicken
March 14, 2003 4:45 PM   Subscribe

Dixie Chicks Pulled from Air After Bashing Bush Dude, these Texas people didn't find criticism of the president unpatriotic when Bill Clinton was president. They thought it was a sacred duty...Apparently country stations in Texas and elsewhere are pulling Dixie Chicks albums because their lead singer, while on an overseas tour, criticized Bush, saying she was ashamed to be from the state as him. People who want to criticize the critics of the critical comments are supporting the Chicks by buying their albums and requesting their songs. I never thought I'd buy a Dixie Chicks album, but that's what I'm going to do tonight, and I'm paying full price!
posted by jengod (82 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

 
Actually, their cover of "Landslide" is pretty good.
posted by signal at 4:46 PM on March 14, 2003


they were scraping by in that city playing gigs on street corners for tips

Is this one of those "the past repeats itself" things?
posted by hama7 at 4:56 PM on March 14, 2003


Just because the bash someone doesn't make their music any better or worse.

Way to sell yourself short by saying things are *only* cool if they agree with a certain viewpoint.
posted by Be'lal at 5:00 PM on March 14, 2003


Speaking as a Texas person, I think Natalie Maines is a little naive to think that Texas couldn't produce someone like George Bush, but I'm not especially glad to claim him, either. Too bad she decided she could only speak her mind overseas - maybe she didn't think it would get back to their fans in Texas? Welcome to the Global Village, Natalie.

Station managers said their decisions were prompted by calls from irate listeners who thought criticism of the president was unpatriotic.

The irony is crushing my little skull.
posted by RylandDotNet at 5:07 PM on March 14, 2003


They're an established name now. They could either go back to being super-poppy and add a little more rock and move over to VH-1 and pop radio permanently, or get a little more creative and sell a little less on adult alternative or whatever. They've so sounded more country lately than anything on country radio anyway. Country is more a lifestyle category/genre for suburban with shitkicker or vague "rural values" affectations these days. But it can't sound too country!
posted by raysmj at 5:09 PM on March 14, 2003


Sounds like they're here to put the dick back in Dixie and the cunt back in country.



...been waiting to say that for years.
posted by Stan Chin at 5:15 PM on March 14, 2003 [1 favorite]


Whatever. I'm buying their album too.
posted by LittleMissCranky at 5:18 PM on March 14, 2003


I always thought the short, loud one was hot!
posted by black8 at 5:20 PM on March 14, 2003


Uh, Stan...I think The Kuntry Kunts did that a while back. Sorry.
posted by adamgreenfield at 5:20 PM on March 14, 2003


I live in Austin, Texas, and I tell you what - there are a lot of people here that aren't too happy about Bush coming from the GSOT. Not just in the "big city", either, but all over.

What does this teach us? 1) There are vocal dumbasses everywhere, and 2) corporations and the media will bend over in a second for a whiner, as long as there's no money at stake.

(Obligatory Austin commie link)
posted by majcher at 5:21 PM on March 14, 2003


>corporations and the media will bend over in a second for a whiner

Exactly. I'm not even asking the radio stations to make a free speech pricinpled stand as much as admitting they really don't care, they're in the business of playing something between the commercials. At the end of the day no one at the station or at the label cares what the whiners think, but they might as well cave in case some journalists (or opportunist politicians) want to paint their business as being "unpatriotic."

Man, I don't want to even know the politics of the musicians I like. Then again I don't pretend the music I listen to defines or represents my "lifestyle."

Just don't tell these angry texans that most artists, even the middle-America friendly ones, traditionally lean towards the left. I haven't heard much from "Musicians for War" or "Baroque Painters against the Landmine Ban." lately.
posted by skallas at 5:37 PM on March 14, 2003


Natalie Maines Statement
From KILT Houston TX
The following statement was issued by Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks on the afternoon of Friday, March 14th:


"As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American."

But I tend to agree with jengod these people banning the Chicks because of Nathalie Maines comments are the same people who didnt see it a problem to bash former President Clinton.

Im buyin a Dixie Chicks album tonight and eating some French Fries.

"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it."
VOLTAIRE
posted by thedailygrowl at 5:39 PM on March 14, 2003


And here I thought GW Bush was from Maine...
posted by Space Coyote at 5:52 PM on March 14, 2003


I can't believe that after all these years of complaining about how bad the state of music is, you are all buying the shittiest corporate country music you can find just because they criticized Bush. What the hell is wrong with you? At least, at *least* donate that money to the EFF or something.
posted by Spacelegoman at 5:57 PM on March 14, 2003


> ...been waiting to say that for years.

Stan, been meaning to do this for months (would do it in email but I don't see an address):

Fuller rises and tips hat. How do you do, Mr. Chin? Very pleased to meet you.

- fuller (over in athens)

PS. Why did the chicken cross the road?
To show the possums that it can be done.
posted by jfuller at 6:07 PM on March 14, 2003


What a great steaming pile of patriotic pap this country is turning into.
posted by birdherder at 6:10 PM on March 14, 2003


I'm not from Texas so perhaps I have a skewed view but there's a difference between banning someone and responding to public pressure.

Part of being a celebrity, of any type -- film, music, etc, is popularity. There are thousands of artists who posses more skill for each one who makes it to the big time. People don't buy the Dixie Chicks albums because they're the absolute best performers in that genre. In some ways, celebrities are like politicians. They serve at the will of the people. When they quit pleasing their audiences they are tossed aside for the next fame seeker. We've ousted Lott and Moran from leadership positions within their parties for slips of the tongue so why do celebrities get a pass when they say things that their fans disagree with?

If the Dixie Chicks would have gotten up in front of a sold out crowd in Alabama and said "We hate n*ggers" would anyone here defend them against radio stations who decided not to play their music due to protests from listeners? Nobody has a right to celebrity. It's not in the Constitution the last time I checked. There is no entitlement to having your records played, your films watched, or your television shows renewed. It's not censorship, it's choice.

I got a good chuckle out of Hollywood's response to the backlash they received for doing their virtual march against Bush and the war. Many of these celebrities have advocated boycotting businesses in the past but when people started calling the television studios and film studios saying they were going to boycott films and television shows that featured actors who had participated in protests against the war, SAG issued a statement claiming that their views were being censored and kept making references to McCarthy-era blacklisting of actors. The subtle difference, which they didn't seem to be able to appreciate in all their hubris, was that the government wasn't restricting them it was their fans who were threatening not to purchase their product (entertainment). The implication that fans not buying their product is somehow censoring their views is but a mere example of how completely out of touch Hollywood is with the rest of America.
posted by billman at 6:10 PM on March 14, 2003


billman, a couple points:

Expressing a belief in racism is not comparable with expressing a political opinion. I think its fair to say that to modern people one of these expressions in indefensible and the other is an opinion regarding how government should be run. I don't think using an extreme, almost straw-man like example really helps to clarify this issue at all.

Also, it seems to me that SAG, Hollywood, etc quickly took up the defensive against any McCarthy-esque shennanigans this time around. There simply would not have been a HUAC without the grassroots support it enjoyed. Hollywood learned that attacking the roots is the best way to avoid another opportunist senator taking them on.
posted by skallas at 6:27 PM on March 14, 2003


Who really is in touch with America anymore?
posted by whirlwind29 at 6:32 PM on March 14, 2003


We've ousted Lott and Moran from leadership positions within their parties for slips of the tongue so why do celebrities get a pass when they say things that their fans disagree with?

First of all, celebrities don't make laws. Second: who ever said that those in the celebrity spotlight are somehow immune to public scrutiny?
posted by poopy at 6:33 PM on March 14, 2003


... one more thing. have you looked at any tabloids in the past 10-20 years? have you watched 'the o'reilly factor' (the most watched cable news in all of prime-time, period!)?
posted by poopy at 6:44 PM on March 14, 2003


Second: who ever said that those in the celebrity spotlight are somehow immune to public scrutiny?

The person who equates boycotting their products with censoring their speech. Hint: When people equate Voltaire's comments with this situation.

Expressing a belief in racism is not comparable with expressing a political opinion. I think its fair to say that to modern people one of these expressions in indefensible and the other is an opinion regarding how government should be run.

Only because you think that. There are skinheads, arians, etc. all over this country and the ACLU protects their rights to free speech regardless of how "indefensible" you think those thoughts may be. I intentionally picked a topic which people would react to in that manner because it's only a straw man argument if you happen to believe:

a) What you believe to be "indefensible" is actually "indefensible"

b) You happen to believe that the people protesting the Dixie Chicks don't view their behavior just as "indefensible" as you would view racism.

Racism obviously has aspects to it which may make it more dangerous than unpatriotic comments but for you to claim that one is not justified in feeling animostiy or hatred towards someone or something simply because you don't see it that way is a very self-focused view.
posted by billman at 6:49 PM on March 14, 2003


I'd hold off on buying their CD.

While some bands do make money from CDs, the Dixie Chicks definitely do not. According to them, they don't make any money at all off disks, and consider them promotional albums for their concerts.
posted by delmoi at 6:54 PM on March 14, 2003


Expressing a belief in racism is not comparable with expressing a political opinion. I think its fair to say that to modern people one of these expressions in indefensible and the other is an opinion regarding how government should be run. I don't think using an extreme, almost straw-man like example really helps to clarify this issue at all.

Actually, what exactly is the issue? We all hold opinions. The only reason any political opinion Natalie Maines might have would even make it into national news is because she's in the midst of her 15 minutes of fame - i.e., is a "celebrity" of some sort (at least this year). If she decides to use her bit of fame as a platform upon which to make statements that seriously piss off a sizable percentage of her fans (i.e., the people responsible for handing her the platform in the first place), it is not somehow unjust for those fans to react negatively.
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:04 PM on March 14, 2003


It was pretty lame for her to start talking only once she was outside the US. "I'm like, heh heh, down with your cause, WORRRRRD, heh heh."
posted by shoos at 7:05 PM on March 14, 2003


This isn't a free speech issue, by any means, as no one is passing a law to prevent her from speaking her mind. The meat of this issue, as has already been mentioned, is that these same fans holler and cheer whenever Jay Leno makes a Bill Clinton joke, and certainly don't consider that to be unpatriotic.

Anyway, if Steve Earle has managed to avoid starvation despite being constantly on the wrong side of public opinion, I'm sure this one statement Miss Maines has made won't hurt her too badly.
posted by Space Coyote at 7:11 PM on March 14, 2003


billman, i'm sorry but you're confusing public opinion with government intervention. simple as that. [and yes, i saw your take on," but there's a difference between banning someone and responding to public pressure. "] but you are trying to twist the whole thing around by implying that celebrities who voice their opinion are no different than the politicians who make the laws that govern this land. it's silly.

and no, i've heard of the dixie chicks but i still will not buy their cd, mostly because i have this disgusting paranoia of anything country.
posted by poopy at 7:15 PM on March 14, 2003


"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally trasonable to the American Public."

--Theodore Roosevelt
posted by benjh at 7:20 PM on March 14, 2003 [1 favorite]


>because you don't see it that way is a very self-focused view.

To be fair in my post I wrote about modern people. Racism is more or less a belief in absolute generalizations about a race, and is easily refuted. I don't think modern people simply believe racism is wrong, I think its more or less been demonstrated to be false to the point of questioning the existance of race itself, but that's a topic for another time.

Your rhetorical trick of using an extreme to clarify a situation still isn't working, at least not to me. Its fairly obvious that what Natalie said is far from controversial like the example you used and like I said earlier its unfair to substitute one for the other. Natalie could have made her comment to a random stranger without much of a fuss, but the comment you suggested would make quite a fuss. I'm not defending common sense or the comman man. I'm pointing out the double standard here for Natalie.

Natalie's comment is powerful because it goes against everything the DC are marketed as. Good, white, christian country girls do not disagree with the president about serious matters. Its that simple to some people. When Natalie criticized the president, somewhere on the battlefield of the cultural/political war a rampart collapsed. People are reacting, mostly with "so whats," but the loudest are the people outraged at her statement. I'm certain they feel deeply betrayed by their own, especially after an onslaught of world-wide criticism against their president.
posted by skallas at 7:21 PM on March 14, 2003


" I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect"

Why ? Just because he's the current president ? Nonsense. No CD buying from me, for two reasons:

a) That's probably a press statement made to keep the hard core "pro-bush" country-loving citizens happy.That's prostitution of statements, something best left to bad politicians.
b) I don't buy music for the opinions of the singers, but
for the music itself.
posted by elpapacito at 7:22 PM on March 14, 2003


Hrm, how I remember the days of Gulf War I when just about everyone expressed embarassment over Dan Quayle.

If she decides to use her bit of fame as a platform upon which to make statements that seriously piss off a sizable percentage of her fans (i.e., the people responsible for handing her the platform in the first place), it is not somehow unjust for those fans to react negatively.

On the other hand, if a radio station chooses to use its formatting as a platform upon which to make statements that seriously piss off a sizable percentage of its fans, it is not somehow unjust for those fans to react negatively.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 7:34 PM on March 14, 2003


The US is beginning to resemble a bunch of chickens at a pecking party. Good lord ...
posted by pyramid termite at 7:42 PM on March 14, 2003


Thanks for the quote, benjh.

Also, what TR said.
posted by Zonker at 7:52 PM on March 14, 2003


I don't think modern people simply believe racism is wrong

How do you define modern? I don't agree with racists, skinheads, nazis or any of those groups but I also don't just pretend they don't exist because they aren't "modern." Hell, the comments made by both Lott and Moran were racist. So are they not modern? How do you define modern?

Its fairly obvious that what Natalie said is far from controversial like the example you used

Only because in your world-view you don't see it as that important. I might even guess that you agree with their view so you've even less likely to be able to see the world thru their eyes. As a vet I'm sure I define the world in a much different way than you do. There are things which you may not object to but I find indefensible. But at the same time I understand and respect the fact that you don't see the world as I do. I don't just dismiss you.

While I don't feel as strongly enough to boycott radio stations or burn records I do understand and respect those who do. Personally, I'm tweaked mostly for the reasons appreciation stated. They waited until they were in Germany to make their statements and then they attempted to apologize which means that either they said it as a way to whore themselves to their German audience or their apology was nothing more than a PR stunt. For me, I don't have to agree with you but you should at least be congruent. I would have had more respect for them had they said they meant what they said.

I also take issue when one attempts to imply that exercising my right to buy or not buy someone's product is somehow an infringement on their rights. It either displays an ignorance of the Constitution/Bill of Rights or it betrays a level of dishonesty that I do find unacceptable.

And as for poopy's comments:

celebrities who voice their opinion are no different than the politicians who make the laws that govern this land. it's silly.

I really don't feel that I am being silly. I have a right to decide what I do buy or don't buy whether that be a candidate or a product. Granted, the decisions of a politician are more importnat to me than the views of a celebrity but the point is neither is above my scrutiny.
posted by billman at 9:05 PM on March 14, 2003


I can't believe that after all these years of complaining about how bad the state of music is, you are all buying the shittiest corporate country music you can find just because they criticized Bush. What the hell is wrong with you?

Spacelegoman, there's a lot of horrible, horrible country music out there that is written based on formulas as a cash cow for labels by bands invented by labels, with Top 40 musicians repackaged with an ersatz Arkansas accent. Dixie Chicks are not in this group. The Chicks do their own thing. They paid their dues over the course of a decade of performing in Texas, signed with Sony, and then ditched them, saying that they hated the record industry, and founded their own label, Wide Open Records, and released Home, they're truly-excellent new album. (I just discovered them a few months ago, having previously assumed that they were just the latest garbage being churned out by the "new country" music industry. I was wrong, of course.)

Calling Dixie Chicks "corporate country music" is entirely inaccurate.
posted by waldo at 9:05 PM on March 14, 2003


Looks like a new way has been found of parting pacifists from their money.
posted by clevershark at 9:41 PM on March 14, 2003


The rush to war? They've been talking about it for over a farking year now... if that's "rushing", god forbid the US should go to war slowly!

If the US had in fact rushed to war, there would be a lot less iraqis starving while being eaten alive by lice in ill-furnished trenches.
posted by clevershark at 9:45 PM on March 14, 2003


(I just discovered them a few months ago, having previously assumed that they were just the latest garbage being churned out by the "new country" music industry. I was wrong, of course.)

Hey, waldo, thanks for the heads up. I'd assumed same as you.
posted by y2karl at 10:00 PM on March 14, 2003


Looks like a new way has been found of parting pacifists from their money.

Sigh. People opposed to the war are to pacifists as people in favor of the war are to fascists.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:04 PM on March 14, 2003


The Dixie Chicks are great. I heard about them several years ago and decided they were just more corporate bullshit. I saw them perform on SNL a few weeks ago and was as impressed as I was at Perl Jams performance several years ago. I purchased their new one and have absolutely fallen in love with it. And I absolutely hate country music.

These young ladies are very talented and obviously row their own boat.

More power to them for speaking up against the moron in office. They are obviously in this for the long haul. A bunch of fly by night patriots will, in the long run, have little effect on the ladies' careers.

The important point here is the music. Just great! Especially check out the anti-war (Vietnam) song called "Travelin Soldier" by the Austin singer/songwriter Bruce Robison.

Pretty funny that that these yahoos would have a problem with this speech considering that the Dixie Chicks are obviously anti-war by their choice to sing anti-war songs!
posted by filchyboy at 10:17 PM on March 14, 2003


What waldo said.
posted by namespan at 10:37 PM on March 14, 2003


If you're opposed to war, aren't you a pacifist by definition?
posted by clevershark at 10:57 PM on March 14, 2003


This reminds me of when kd lang got drummed out of country music for being an open vegetarian.

If you recall, she reinvented herself as a torch singer, quite successfully, and is now able to be comfortably openly gay as well.

My only fear is that the Dixie Chicks will be kicked out of Nashville and take lodging elsewhere, instead of just going the fuck away.
posted by padraigin at 11:01 PM on March 14, 2003


The full Roosevelt quote benjh posted can be found here. (The quotes page maintained by the Theodore Roosevelt Association.) He was quoted May 17, 1918, in the Kansas City Star.

De-lurking for the first time...
posted by emelenjr at 11:16 PM on March 14, 2003


Oh, y'all should have seen the ration of trolls on the Dixie Chicks fan boards a couple of days ago. A bunch of Freepers headed over there to wreak havoc until the main forums we're closed to fan club members only.

I own all of the modern Chicks CDs (they've been around for a long time prior to Wide Open Spaces) and I also have tickets to see them in DC in June.

The outcry against them is hilarious like they aren't allowed to have political opinions of their own, they must fall in line with Toby 'boot in their ass' Keith or Charlie 'celebrities, other than those who agree with me, should shut up' Daniels.
posted by SuzySmith at 11:19 PM on March 14, 2003


jengod said: I never thought I'd buy a Dixie Chicks album, but that's what I'm going to do tonight, and I'm paying full price!

Let's try to refrain from using the front page as a MarketFunnel.
posted by yonderboy at 11:48 PM on March 14, 2003


I tried to write a comment about all of this, but I couldn't do it. The US seems to be committing itself to a Hell of it's own design.

Just remember that nobody likes a bully.
posted by chrisgregory at 12:09 AM on March 15, 2003


None of this furor really surprises me, any more....except the knee-jerk against country music. I'll grant that *most* of the stuff on the radio today is pretty awful to my ears...but goddamn, give me some Haggard or Hank Sr., and this former metalhead is in bliss.

Really, guys, the vocal affectation might put you off at first (part of the knee-jerk), but there's a lot of country music that plumbs the interesting parts of the human condition.

I rolled my eyes at the first couple 'Chicks albums, my learned to like 'em. And the latest really is a treasure.
posted by notsnot at 1:18 AM on March 15, 2003


Anyone who dismisses the Dixie Chicks as "corporate country" needs to take a closer look at their career. They've spent a helluva lot of time skewering the corporate music biz and fighting for their rights as artists.

...signed with Sony, and then ditched them, saying that they hated the record industry, and founded their own label, Wide Open Records, and released Home, they're truly-excellent new album.

Well, actually, it went more like this: During a 60 Minutes interview, the Chicks found out that Sony had made over $200 million on them, while they'd only made $1 million each. Having always considered themselves smart businesswomen, they "felt stupid" after hearing the reality, and started researching the issue. They quickly declared their contract with Sony void after discovering what they called "fraudulent accounting gimmicks." Sony sued, they countersued, and while the case went through the courts, the Chicks recorded their latest, stripped-down, self-produced album, "Home," free of Sony's interference.

When the Chicks started shopping the completed album around to other labels, Sony quickly settled the lawsuit in the Chicks' favor (to the tune of $20 million, some say). The settlement included the formation of a new label that was owned by the Chicks and distributed by Sony. The album's first single, eagerly anticipated by corporate country radio, had lyrics that were a direct poke in the eye to corporate country radio.

Come on, the Dixie Chicks *rock.*

The Philly Inquirer has more details and some great quotes.
posted by mediareport at 2:13 AM on March 15, 2003


Had I the ability to leave this country in disguist after we reelected Ronald Reagan (I was unfortunately too young then), I would have. Now I have the means and ability, and I've had it with my damned constituancy. This place sucks. There, I said it. The people of Texas, my home state, deserve the bigotted, simple-minded fasicsts they so desire.

In a bitter screed, I quote the poet Theognis, writing of another of history's arrogant democracies, Athens:

Stamp on the empty-headed people! Jab
With your pointed goad, and lay the heavy yoke
Around their necks! You won't find, under the sun
A people who love slavery so much.

posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:04 AM on March 15, 2003 [1 favorite]


While I don't feel as strongly enough to boycott radio stations or burn records I do understand and respect those who do.

I understand them, exactly as I understand tapeworms, and I respect them, exactly as I respect tapeworms.
posted by Opus Dark at 3:37 AM on March 15, 2003 [1 favorite]


As I said back about Cat Stevens (Yusuf Islaam) back in the days of the Salman Rushdie-fatwah prouncement thing:

"Trust the art and not the artist."
posted by alumshubby at 4:55 AM on March 15, 2003


Odd how the only political option that most American citizens think they have is control over the pursestrings.
posted by Domain Master 666 at 4:56 AM on March 15, 2003


Thanks for the Roosevelt quote, benjh. I found another one that pretty much sums up my feelings about Bush et al:

"A muttonhead, after an education at West Point—or Harvard—is a muttonhead still."

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/TR/TR_In_His_Own_Words.htm
posted by Corky at 5:02 AM on March 15, 2003


I know it's a lot of fun to get all polarizing and "Us vs. Them" on anything relating to the war or GW Bush, but while it may be emotionally satisfying it's really kinda counterproductive.

That said, I think it's silly to ban someone for speaking their mind, and conversely it's also silly to buy someone's just because you share political opinions, buy records cause you like the music. I may share an opinion or two(not all by all means) with Natalie Merchant, however I find her music mind bogglingly dull. I disagree strongly with a lot of Ted Nugent's political opinions but I still treasure my copy of Free For All.

That said, the Dixie Chicks are pretty much the cream of today's Top 40 contry and I mean that as a compliment. They have excellent chops, good taste and a strong feminist streak (which [self-link] blogged about a while back) . Plus, for you traditionalists they did do a nifty cover of Merele Haggard's "Roly Poly" with Asleep At The Wheel.

Plus Natalie(the one in the middle) is really, really pretty.
posted by jonmc at 6:50 AM on March 15, 2003


Best quip goes to Opus Dark. I'm still giggling about that one.
posted by hank_14 at 6:51 AM on March 15, 2003


Plus, for you traditionalists they did do a nifty cover of Merle Haggard's "Roly Poly" with Asleep At The Wheel.

Um, Bob Wills and His Texas Playboys?

You, of all people....

*looks at jonmc with irritated disappointment and taps foot*
posted by y2karl at 8:01 AM on March 15, 2003


Dude, these Texas people didn't find criticism of the president unpatriotic when Bill Clinton was president.


Radio stations across the nation are participating in this - to single Texas out is hardly appropriate.
On the other hand, it sure is hilarious to make fun of us dumb inbred Texans.....so, carry on!

I never really paid attention to The Dixie Chicks until the hoopla with Sony. I'm not much of a country music fan, but I love their new album.
posted by bradth27 at 8:11 AM on March 15, 2003


*looks at jonmc with irritated disappointment and taps foot*

....

Teach me to post before coffee.
posted by jonmc at 8:22 AM on March 15, 2003


From today's Houston Chronicle:

In Houston, listener-sponsored Pacifica radio station KPFT (90.1 FM), said it would play the Dixie Chicks now more than ever.

"I just heard about it an hour ago from a caller who said there is some kind of boycott against the Dixie Chicks," said Wendy Schroell, KPFT administrative assistant. "That is the craziest thing I have ever heard. We are going to be playing them all the time. If people are calling them un-American, how American is it to boycott someone for something they think?"

posted by thatweirdguy2 at 8:41 AM on March 15, 2003


The Dixie Chicks' Emily Robison is married to Charlie Robison, whose brother Bruce is married to (the great) Kelly Willis. They all live around Austin and make terrific music, some of which is released on "good" major labels (Charlie's on Sony's Lucky Dog, Kelly's last two albums are on Rykodisc). What I'm saying is, whatever deals they've made, they're part of a real roots country scene.
posted by nicwolff at 9:28 AM on March 15, 2003


Buying an album because they disagree with Bush is just as dim-witted as banning an album because they disagree with Bush. Buying the album doesn't prove anything, unless you simply like the music.
posted by Karl at 9:46 AM on March 15, 2003


I did in fact buy the album. So far it's pretty good.

Sorry for the MarketFunnel faux pas!

"If you're opposed to war, aren't you a pacifist by definition?"

Main Entry: pac·i·fism
Pronunciation: 'pa-s&-"fi-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
Date: 1902
1 : opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2 : an attitude or policy of nonresistance


It's my understand that pacifists, by definition, oppose all war. They think we should all dance through the daisies and sing tra-la-la. If you're a attacked, turn the other cheek, etc.

Being an anti-war protester can be, and I think is often, an entirely specific thing, related to a particular conflict, rather than all wars, ever. I think that's been forgotten in the retrospective tar-and-feathering of "peaceniks" of the '60s. The hippies screwed this up--opposing an American war became the same thing as hating American culture and spitting on returning U.S. servicemen.

For my part, I have no problem with American military might, and with most of our work overseas in my lifetime, but I feel this war is run by the wrong people for the wrong reasons at the wrong time.

Love the troops, hate the stupid war.
posted by jengod at 9:58 AM on March 15, 2003


Werd, I don't remember Jewel being boycotted for her bitching at Clinton :-)

Never mind, at least this proves that Republicans are just as stupid as Democrats. One group likes to censor stuff they don't like, and the other group.. er.. likes to censor stuff they don't like. Been there, done that, join the Libertarian Party, kthxbi.
posted by wackybrit at 10:38 AM on March 15, 2003


nicwolff: That's sorta related to the point I was trying to make earlier. They don't necessarily *need* the support of country radio as much anymore. While moving into rock and pop radio would keep their sales at the current high level, there's always the chance at going into other, smaller markets that are friendlier to rootsier stuff - and selling respectably to hugely anyway. One of the reasons they could afford to get rootsier in the first place, and still thrive, was the success of "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" That one didn't need country radio's support. The Chicks get fans of that soundtrack, the hardcore roots people, devotees of the Dylanesque, alt-country fans, Allman Bros. nuts and of course prototypical Sheryl Crow listeners, etc. (A young Spnning class instructor whose class I've attended a few times in the past year plays nothing but cheesy '80s hits, southern rock and Dixie Chicks. That's so typical. Do you think she's gaga for country radio? I kinda doubt it.)
posted by raysmj at 10:41 AM on March 15, 2003


It's the APOLOGY that's crackin' me up and shows the pure hypocrisy of the Chickie Dix....

They spoke their mind, experienced backlash which reminded them who their fans were, and apologized.

Wonder if the apology was carried in European press?
posted by acutetype at 10:59 AM on March 15, 2003


It's the APOLOGY that's crackin' me up and shows the pure hypocrisy of the Chickie Dix....

Why? The apology was for disrespecting the office of President, not for the antiwar views. It's a backdown, sure, but not outright hypocrisy.

They spoke their mind, experienced backlash which reminded them who their fans were

"Though most country listeners are over 40, 60 percent of the fans buying the Dixie Chicks' albums are under 25."

I think they probably had a good idea "who their fans were" before this episode.
posted by mediareport at 11:11 AM on March 15, 2003


You don't have to oppose war to oppose this war. I oppose war against children, but support war against giant-brain-sucking-alien-zombies. Am I a pacifist?

side note: spell check suggestion for giant-brain-sucking-alien-zombies: egalitarians
posted by blue_beetle at 11:35 AM on March 15, 2003


The hippies screwed this up--opposing an American war became the same thing as hating American culture and spitting on returning U.S. servicemen.

I don't want to derail this thread but, for the record, you're talking urban legend, jengod, a myth and a lie.

How Vietnam is to be remembered looms large on the agenda of the turn-of-the-century legacy studies. Remembered as a war that was lost because of betrayal at home, Vietnam becomes a modern day Alamo that must be avenged, a pretext for more war and generations of more veterans. Remembered as a war in which soldiers and pacifists joined hands to fight for peace, Vietnam symbolizes popular resistance to political authority and the dominant images of what it means to be a good American. By challenging myths like that of the Spat-upon Vietnam veteran, we reclaim our role in the writing of our own history, the construction of our own memory, and the making of our own identity.

There is absolutely no documentation any soldier was ever spat upon. Jesus Christ, I was alive then--if soldiers had been spat upon, we would have heard about it then--Spiro Agnew or George Wallace would have had a field day. We didn't--the stories started in the 80s. Your memory of Viet Nam is derived from movies and a phony myth about how the protestors made us lose the war. Let me repeat myself once again: Bring The Boys Home was our Support Our Troops. I get so sick of hearing these received fantasies about Viet Nam .
posted by y2karl at 11:45 AM on March 15, 2003


Last night I went to a Flaming Lips concert. Onstage there were huge plastic robots, young women in Rabbit / Dog / Tiger funny costumes who jumped and danced and threw big plastic balloons around. Wayne Coyne kept throwing confetti at the audience, too. He said the best way to enjoy the concert was to consider it a kid's birthday party, then asked the audience if it actually were somebody's birthday. A guy said yes, it was his birthday, Coyne asked what was his name, and then sang "Happy Birthday to You", and asked the audience to sing along with him. He talked about the Wizard of Oz and sang his heart out.
Everybody had a great, great time.
Coyne never mentioned politics once, and I think that if he did, it would have ruined the concert. I love Masters Of War and The Clash as much as anybody, but really, most of the time the political stuff demeans the music itself -- i.e., first it should sound good, everything else is incidental.
After 9-11, Bob Dylan didn't say anything, except quoting a little-known Kipling poem about humankind and horror and God's silence
Too often musicians have nothing especially interesting to say about politics, especially recently -- and very often their political songs are far from being their best work.

(btw my Dylan's favorite album is Blood on the Tracks)
posted by matteo at 12:00 PM on March 15, 2003


You don't have to oppose war to oppose this war.

So it's not being done on principle.
posted by clevershark at 12:04 PM on March 15, 2003


You don't have to oppose war to oppose this war.

So it's not being done on principle.

It could be done on a principle other than the principle of all war being bad.
posted by kindall at 12:13 PM on March 15, 2003


actually, clevershark, it is being done on principle, not just the principle of "oppose ALL war." That's why there's always hair-splitting about "just" and "unjust" wars. *On preview, what kindall said.)

Re: Dixie Chicks and Big Radio -- yes, outside-the-mainstream country acts can succeed (think, f'r instance, of the excellent Lyle Lovett), but it's a much-harder slog without radio and CMT to pave the way. Especially at the start of any kind of national career...once you get your name known to a core fan base, you'll typically do all right. But until then, a day job is probably required.

Love real country music, hate country radio. (My new favorite is Tift Merritt -- even though I was in elementary school with her and had the BIGGEST crush on her in fourth grade.)
posted by Vidiot at 12:27 PM on March 15, 2003 [1 favorite]


in other news, Americans still overreact to everything.
posted by mcsweetie at 12:30 PM on March 15, 2003


In yet other news, non-Americans persist in making sweeping statements about Americans.

(Every broad sweeping generalization -- including this one -- is wrong.)
posted by Vidiot at 1:18 PM on March 15, 2003


Actually, their cover of "Landslide" is pretty good.

*tiptoes in*

I was mortified to find myself close to tears--hell, in tears--at their performance of this song at the Grammies; and I have, for years, on principle, hated Top 40 country. I just had to say that.

Please carry on.

*tiptoes out*
posted by jokeefe at 2:04 PM on March 15, 2003


btw, compare this incredibly minor slight to the pornographic vitriol leveled against clinton by the same kinds of of people who are all offended for 8 years.
posted by delmoi at 2:33 PM on March 15, 2003




How weak was that backtracking though? "I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect." Music aside, that was a serious caving.
posted by shoos at 5:14 PM on March 15, 2003


clevershark:

I need not oppose eating on principle in order to oppose the eating of feces. Or "freedom fries."

The Gulf War was a just war, engendered by a greedy and stupid politician's unlawful desire to take over someone else's country. Gulf War Deux (DubyaDubya Too) is, unfortunately, also being engendered by a greedy and stupid politician's unlawful desire to take over someone else's country. In the name of liberty and democracy, thank you very much.

The founding principle of the United Nations, spawned in the bitter aftermath of the the planet's most destructive conflict, was to substitue the collective action of nations for war. This principle is about to be violated on the pretext that it is being upheld.
posted by rdone at 6:35 PM on March 15, 2003


in other news, Americans still overreact to everything.

Which is, of course, why we invented the Internet. We were running out of water coolers and newspaper columnists and wanted to get EVERYONE in on the fun.
posted by solistrato at 8:02 PM on March 15, 2003


How weak was that backtracking though? "I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect."

Yeah, ok, shoos, I'd have gone with "a bare minimum of public respect" instead. But it's still far from hypocrisy.
posted by mediareport at 1:42 PM on March 16, 2003


« Older CTHEORY, the international journal of theory...   |   Stewart For America! Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments



Post