• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Dixie Chicks

coalesce said:
If you mean patriotism as in expressing what you feel be it right or left, I agree. If you mean good-ole fashioned lock-step flag waving, I haven't seen it to the scale that you perceive.
Click to expand...

I meant "Being Damn' Proud O'Being An American, And Singin' 'Bout It, Too!". Include some flag waving.
 
Cleon said:
...I am going to go out on a limb and suggest that sexism may play a role in the downfall of the Dixie Chicks; nothing they've said is any more left-wing than some of the things Kristofferson, Nelson, or others have said. I think that among country music fans, who are (as previously mentioned) rather conservative in their outlook, the idea of women speaking out on these issues is a bit of an anathema. They want the Chicks to shut up, look pretty, and sing nice, and that's it.

At least, this is the impression I've got from reading between the lines. I fully admit I can't prove sexism is at work here, but if comparisons are going to be made, they can easily be made to other country stars without going to Neil Young.
Click to expand...
I suggested as much in my "leading question" back in post #30.
 
Ziggurat said:
Well, maybe they're simply not good enough. The better the artist is, the more likely potential customers will be willing to overlook other aspects they don't like.
Click to expand...

I'm not buying that one for a second. The Chicks were at the top of their game. Chart-topping singles and albums, their music was appreciated across the spectrum, they had Grammys, AMAs, and other awards coming out the wazoo, and they were being hyped by everyone from radio execs to media commentators to Joe Nascar. Roots music was becoming popular again, largely because of the Chicks. And all of a sudden they're "not good enough?" That just doesn't make sense.
 
Cleon said:
I'm not buying that one for a second. The Chicks were at the top of their game. Chart-topping singles and albums, their music was appreciated across the spectrum, they had Grammys, AMAs, and other awards coming out the wazoo, and they were being hyped by everyone from radio execs to media commentators to Joe Nascar. Roots music was becoming popular again, largely because of the Chicks. And all of a sudden they're "not good enough?" That just doesn't make sense.
Click to expand...

So everyone got off the gravy train because of sexism? I am not buying that.
 
Cleon said:
I'm open to the possibility.


:D Sorry, I forget not everyone here is a music geek.


If we were just talking about, say, Steve Earle, I'd agree with you; he's a bit of a niche singer and isn't the superstar that Nelson, Cash, Kristofferson, etc. have been.

But do you really think Willie Nelson's fans like him for his views more than his music? Again, this is a guy put on a pedestal by many of the same people who are lambasting the Dixie Chicks. I would say the vast majority of his fans like him despite his views, not because of them; a consideration they won't give to the Chicks for some reason.
Click to expand...

I can think of 2 reasons why the Dixie Chicks got more flack than the other groups:

- The situation... the Bush comments were made right around the time of the invasion. I can't think of any similar issues that Nelson would have spoken out against when he was as the height of his popularity

- Mass media... there's a lot more information flow now adays, so that one little comment in one country can easily get transmitted to other countries.

Just out of curiosity, have Nelson, Cash, etc. ever done anything to publicly state thier preferences, or openly criticized the president? Nelson does seem to be the type of person who would vote Democrat, but I can't remember seeing or hearing of him making such views public.
 
CFLarsen said:
Two words:

Michael. Jackson.
Click to expand...

Had he kept turning out hits, there'd have been more in is corner.

Jackson still has his fan base....most left when they found out he was a child molestor (alleged!)

When you do, or are accused, of doing somthing like that...that's what happens.

I'm sure it's because he's a female.
 
Segnosaur said:
I can think of 2 reasons why the Dixie Chicks got more flack than the other groups:

- The situation... the Bush comments were made right around the time of the invasion. I can't think of any similar issues that Nelson would have spoken out against when he was as the height of his popularity
Click to expand...

That's entirely possible, however, Nelson, Kristofferson, and Earle have all been vocally anti-war as well, going back to Vietnam.

- Mass media... there's a lot more information flow now adays, so that one little comment in one country can easily get transmitted to other countries.
Click to expand...

True enough, however, the politics of the other folks have never been a secret.

Just out of curiosity, have Nelson, Cash, etc. ever done anything to publicly state thier preferences, or openly criticized the president? Nelson does seem to be the type of person who would vote Democrat, but I can't remember seeing or hearing of him making such views public.
Click to expand...

Nelson's made a career out of it. Hell, he's openly endorsed NORML. Earle has been solidly, vocally anti-war since Vietnam, and was anti-Iraq-war from an early day, too. (Many of his songs have been staunchly political.) Kristofferson was well-known for campaigning for the Sandinistas in the 1980s.
 
The Dixie Chicks committed the unpardonable sin of being right at the wrong time. (That and being ignorant of their fan demographic.) Had they made their anti-Bush comments today, they'd be treated with a loud "Ho hum".

And I can understand why they went silent for a long time. They knew that (for a while at least) the Clear Channel-controlled radio stations weren't going to play their stuff. They didn't tour as much because 1) Most bands tour when they have a new release, and 2) They were getting death threats. I can't say I blame them.

As to their new album, our local reviewer liked it a lot. Personally, I've never listened to them as I don't listen to country music much, so I couldn't say if they are better or worse for this episode. But like Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon and others, I respect them for speaking out on their principles at a time when it was a career-threatening move to do so.
Houston Chronicle said:
It may have been a long road for the Dixie Chicks, but this is their most significant album yet, even if it turns out to not be the most commercially successful.
Click to expand...
 
Regnad Kcin said:
BPSCG suggests some nefarious, unproven agenda to the group's position,
Click to expand...
Nefarious? I say thee nay. They are entertainers selling a product. As such, they have the right to do whatever they want, within the bounds of the law, to sell more of their product. I was simply suggesting that their retraction of their apology is probably no more than a public relations stunt designed to get them more publicity (that's what public relations stunts are for, after all) and enable them to make more money. Time magazine has assisted them in that endeavor by obligingly putting them on this week's cover. Once upon a time, that would have endowed them with a certain amount of gravitas, but today, it only helps prove, if it still needed to be proven, that Time is now a trivial, homeopathic shadow of what was once a great magazine.
 
Grammatron said:
It's all about the money.
Click to expand...

Of course it is. If you're a studio exec and you see a massive backlash against your singer/group, you either get out of the contract or grit your teeth and bear it. (The studio chose the latter; I assume that, despite the hubub, the Chicks must still be a little profitable.)

Radio stations didn't lose anything from the mess. If anything, they capitalized on it by jumping on the bandwagon, denouncing them on the air and publicly destroying the Chicks' CDs.

So money's only a tangential consideration here, as far as I can see.
 
Cleon said:
That's entirely possible, however, Nelson, Kristofferson, and Earle have all been vocally anti-war as well, going back to Vietnam.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but Vietnam was a war that also lasted through democratic presidents as well as republican.

True enough, however, the politics of the other folks have never been a secret.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but there's a difference between having your opinions available (if someone wants to dig for them), and having them broadcast on a hundred different web sites, a dozen cable networks, etc.

Nelson's made a career out of it. Hell, he's openly endorsed NORML. Earle has been solidly, vocally anti-war since Vietnam, and was anti-Iraq-war from an early day, too. (Many of his songs have been staunchly political.) Kristofferson was well-known for campaigning for the Sandinistas in the 1980s.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Thing is, Nelson's support of NORML probably didn't matter much, because A) Marijuana reform laws aren't QUITE the hot button issue that a war is, and B) even many 'conservative' country fans probably have either tried it, or were OK with it.

Earle is pretty irrelevant; I don't think he was ever that big in the country music scene.

Not sure about Kristofferson; Thing is, I've always considered him more influential as a songwriter than a performer. If you look at a list of his albums, he didn't seem to release too much in the 1980s (when he would have been supporting the Sandinistas).
 
I know this may come as a shock to some of you, but the Dixie Chicks aren't real.

Even Frank Zappa, one of the most iconoclastic and obnoxious and seemingly outspoken people in the business, who since about 1970 owned and controlled all of his material, once said to an interviewer, in paraphrase, "You are speaking to Frank Zappa the musician. You will never speak to Frank Zappa the person. Only my wife and kids see that."

The original statement about Bush was a miscalculation, nothing more. The apology was calculated. The retraction of the apology was calculated.

Everyone at this level of popularity is always playing a part on stage and in interviews, and the reason is usually simple economics. The Dixie Chicks appeal to a crossover rock/country audience with some lesbians. They know this. They know they are doing this. They misestimated their audience, possibly because they overestimated the number of lesbians or misestimated their politics, and this is probably because they haven't actually met any actual Southern lesbians in ten years that were not filtered through a dozen or so layers of agents, promo people, and hangers on.

There is nothing genuine here. You might think there is, but that's the point of the act. It's all on a series of spreadsheets in a record company. Maybe one of them used SPSS, but since they aren't too bright, probably not.

The only genuine thing that performers at this level ever do is puke or pass out on stage, or go into rehab. Which then almost immediately becomes calculated spin.
 
Regnad Kcin said:
I suggested as much in my "leading question" back in post #30.
Click to expand...
Jocko said:
Rather gracelessly, I may add. What you omitted was any reason why you think that way. I'd be interested in hearing it if you have one.
Click to expand...
Why are you presuming I "think that way?"

Anyway, I'll cut to the chase. There have been numerous posts here suggesting that what the Chicks have done is economically driven, whether they kept their opinions to themselves, offered their opinions, or, I don't know, held no opinions whatsoever. This seems rather a cynical outlook, nevermind convenient; damn them, and damn the facts. Regardless. Now before you ask, I don't know the facts. But it's entirely possible one or more of the trio simply dislike one or more of the policies of the current administration.

What's curious to me, and in retrospect a better question for starting off the thread: Why the very big deal over the 2003 comment? I'll guess that it was due to some combination of its timing (tip of the hat to Tricky), the location (overseas), and the demographic and politics of the average country music fan, the latter including a bit of "traditional values" bias vis-a-vis sexual roles.

Also at work may be a subtle bit of psychological projection. Me, I notice I like a female singer a bit more if she is unmarried. It aids the illusion that she's singing to and for me personally. A relationship, a connection of sorts is in place. If that woman then gets hitched I sense in myself a touch of loss, even though the only thing gone is a silly little fantasy.

I suspect (again, admittedly a guess) this may be universal and for many the Chicks were at one time like their sisters or daughters or girlfriends. With the Bush comment, fans who disagreed felt personally bruised and betrayed, thus the reaction. Not to the remark so much, which was rather mild, but to their disappointment at investing affection and having it turn out to be misplaced.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom