Yeah, well, I'm not the one posting threads about it, am I? The point is, I don't NEED an MRI of the Dixie Chicks' brains to posit a plausible reason for the backlash. Like I said, apply Occam's and all becomes clear.
It isn't as if RK posted a theory in opposition to your. He said there could be a number of factors. Frankly, I find that more consistent with Occam than a "single bullet" theory.
Everything is clear to a person with tunnel vision.
I don't have a problem with the statement. Do you have a problem with my statement that it could be a spaceborne Ross Perot?
If it were plausible. You have provided nothing to show that RKs hypotheses are not plausible as one of multiple factors.
So, wait... you're admitting that
alienation of the fans might have something to do with the Dixie Chicks' fortunes? Hallelujah, I think we've made a breakthrough.
Yeah, I said it several posts back. Try to keep up.
Nick posits that attractiveness and availability have something to do with the Dixie Chicks' appeal. I pointed out a counterexample, which you just reinforced by adding the Rolling Stones to the mix. How is a counterexample and a challenge to support one's position problematic? It seems to me that such expressions are the whole foundation of the P&CE forum.
And you are suggesting that attractiveness does
not have anything to do with the success of musicians? How many no-talent hardbodies do you see on the music scene today? With rare exceptions, the only people who can have mainstream success and still be butt-ugly are those who have a long-established fan base.
As for availability, I'd say that has less to do with it. Even the most die-hard fans realize that their fantasies are just that, and if they don't, then their fantasy scenario includes allowing their object of worship to forsake previous relationships for them, or even change sexual orientation.
How is a counterexample and a challenge to support one's position problematic? It seems to me that such expressions are the whole foundation of the P&CE forum.
It is not so much a challenge as a different example, and it seems that it is not enough for you to provide a counterexample, you must also show that only your counterexample is correct. It is unnecessarily confrontatory.
My position is that your counterexample only shows that established musicians no longer have to rely on looks to draw a crowd. Try convincing us that nobody considered Mick Jagger or Madonna to be attractive when they first broke on the music scene. It is true, though, that looks will only get you so far. Without talent, you will find your one hit album in the resale stacks at the music stores.
Out of interest though, I recently saw
Mickey Dolenz, formerly of the Monkees playing the role of a bad guy in the musical Aida. He sounded okay, but he looked like hell (though it might have been the makeup). Elton John, who also looks like hell, wrote the music. He has talent.
Wow, sounds like someone's on the "Dixie Chicks as oppressed voices of a generation bandwagon." But that's okay, Hack country singers need to eat too.
Well, it is true that the Chicks are trying to appeal to a different demographic now. And no doubt, some of their support comes from those who would not have listened to them had they not found themselves on their side politically. But it was not an economically wise trade-off. If making money were their sole intention, then they scrude the pooch. But I doubt that they will be bankrupt soon.
