Jump to content

Am I the Only Person Who Doesn't Care About the Dixie Chicks?


Recommended Posts

  • Members

Originally posted by Billster



I'll say it again - free speech is protected by the government. Megalomaniac corporations may act badly, but they do so at the risk of a civil rights lawsuit.


If the alleged "victims" here (who by the way have a number one album and leveraged themselves onto the cover of
Rolling Stone
as a result of this nonsense) were really being squished, they could pursue legal action.


Just because many people might agree with the opinion being "blacklisted" by a radio conglomerate, doesn't mean the station owners can't disagree and take action to express that opposition.

 

Bill, I understand your thinking here -- but there's one crucial distinction between a magazine (or internet or cable station) -- and a broadcast station.

 

Broadcast stations are granted a limited license to use a (limited supply) public asset, the airwaves in order to pursue their 'private' business. Because of that, the courts have consistently upheld greater restrictions and qualifications to the license granted than would ever be constitutionally tolerated were they somehow applied to a form of commercial speech which did not use such a public asset (the airwaves).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Members

Originally posted by blue2blue



Bill, I understand your thinking here -- but there's one crucial distinction between a magazine (or internet or cable station) -- and a broadcast station.


Broadcast stations are granted a limited license to use a (limited supply) public asset, the airwaves in order to pursue their 'private' business. Because of that, the courts have consistently upheld greater restrictions and qualifications to the license granted than would ever be constitutionally tolerated were they somehow applied to a form of commercial speech which did
not
use such a public asset (the airwaves).

 

But those restricitions are on areas like obscenity and such. See the thread about that idiot DJ with the threats against his crosstown "rival" DJ. One can't just broadcast things of no redeeming value to the community ("no redeeming value" as defined by the legal system - I know it when I see it :D)

 

The licensing includes a provision for presenting some content that is "in the public interest" We used to call the local rock station's news program (which aired at like 1:00 a.m. on Sunday) the "FCC Compliance Hour". UHF TV stations are always trying to get kids shows labeled as "educational" for the skimpiest of reasons - Look, it's a talking carrot! The show is about eating healthy! - so they can satisfy the public interest requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Rique



Blacklisting does deny free speech.

I'm a musician not a lawyer, but I think you and Jotown are missing a distinction:

 

Gov'ts can insure or deny (and do deny) freedom of speech.

 

But when private industry cuts off access to their distribution systems, and limits the size of an artist's audience (for whatever reason) that's not the same thing as denying free speech.

Originally posted by Rique

Let

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I was thinking more principle than practice, here. Obviously, under the last two administrations, the FCC has -- in the eyes of many -- not been fulfilling their congressionally mandated duties with regard to a number of provisions of federal communications law.

 

No, I was addressing the fundamental difference between a commercial publisher -- or cable- or net- caster -- and a commercial entity which has been granted stewardship of a band of the airwaves, which is a limited public resource.

 

While the rationale for extending "decency standards" laws to cable casters may stretch many legal minds to the breaking point, I think most folks can see the rationale for attaching restrictions and provisos to a license to use the public airwaves.

 

 

But, just so I'm not misunderstood here, I'm not saying that CC did necessarily break any laws or violate rules of their license. I'm only talking about the distinction between broadcasting on the public airwaves and print, cable, or net publishing or media transmission.

 

 

I don't know if they did violate laws or rules -- but I think it's extremely unlikely that there would be legal consequences from this FCC, even if they did. Particularly given the givens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Jotown

YThis is why the de-regulation of radio and TV station ownership was such a big issue. By allowing one entity or voice to control what comes through the publicly owned airwaves you get (for the first time in US history) the ability to block dissenting views.

I agree - it's scarry.

Originally posted by Jotown


Clear Channel and others are not blacklisting the DixChix because people don't want to hear their music (the success they are currently having proves this to be untrue) they are blacklisting them for what they said about bush; hence they are being punished by an organized entity - which has clear political ties - for what they said.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Jotown


First they blacklist music, then the blacklist news. This is not a good trend for America and that the Chix have succeeded despite efforts to block them is an aberration. Someone not so high profile who can't get other media exposure will never get their music, or their political opinion heard.

It's the old adage "democracy is the worst political system in the world, except for all the other ones."

 

Incidentally, I doubt that in the other direction, all that many pro Bush rappers are broadcast on hip hop stations. Not too many threads about that, though.

 

As for someone not so high profile, there's never been as many opportunities to get their music and political opinions heard. Look at what happens here, at MySpace, etc. But no one is guaranteed radio play.

Originally posted by Jotown

Why is this so hard to grock?
:confused:

Because i think that the stench of blacklisting is so abhorant among artists, that many confuse denying airtime with denying freedom of speech.

 

I was tangentially involved with this issue before with some artists at Def Jam who were selling tons of records, but were banned from the radio. While there was nothing about it that didn't stink (except, I suppose, that in the end it didn't matter because like the DixChix, the public embraced them anyway), it wasn't about free speech.

 

Good word, "grock."

 

-plb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It's spelled "grok," but yeah it's a great word. :D

 

I agree with everything you said B-Lips... it is truly scary that antitrust laws aren't more vigorous and particularly that radio ownership is allowed to be conglomerated when the airwaves are supposed to be public. That definitely needs to be fixed.

 

It isn't the same thing as denying freedom of speech, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

In the case of the Dixie Chicks, a point that seems to be overlooked is that Natalie Maine has, in multiple recent interviews, called the country music fans a bunch of rednecks and said that she never really liked country music.

 

That takes the whole Bush issue off the table - the country radio stations are in business, and market to the very audience she's insuted and belittled. I can't imagine why they would play their stuff.

 

btw, they're cancelling shows due to poor sales. Sold out Toronto in 8 minutes, but cancelling Memphis.

 

Chicks Tix Update - Billboard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Brittanylips



Artists have every right to express themselves, but they are not guaranteed that the reaction will please them.


-plb

 

Ann Coulter recently said that the 911 widows have enjoyed their husbands deaths.

 

She

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by EnemyofSilence

In the case of the Dixie Chicks, a point that seems to be overlooked is that Natalie Maine has, in multiple recent interviews, called the country music fans a bunch of rednecks and said that she never really liked country music.


That takes the whole Bush issue off the table - the country radio stations are in business, and market to the very audience she's insuted and belittled. I can't imagine why they
would
play their stuff.


btw, they're cancelling shows due to poor sales. Sold out Toronto in 8 minutes, but cancelling Memphis.


Chicks Tix Update - Billboard

 

This, to me, is the crux. Not only did she insult a large part of the intended audience, the Chicks announced they were leaving country music after this whole furor began.

 

Why would a radio station play their songs when they removed themselves from the genre in a PR announcement?

 

I like the Chicks, but that was just plain stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by blue2blue

I don't know if they did violate laws or rules -- but I think it's extremely unlikely that there would be legal consequences from
this
FCC, even if they did. Particularly given the givens.

 

Somebody has to lodge a complaint, like that Janet Jackson Super Bowl fiasco, or the Victoria's Secret fashion show programs :rolleyes:

 

But the other option is a civil suit by the aggreived party. However, that probably would take something more than simply not playing a given artist, but something like making derogatory statements about why they aren't playing the artist.

 

The deregulation of ownership rules is the big problem here. But even at the border of monopolization, I don't see this as a free speech problem, because the government is not directly banning anything. And certainly all parties have had plenty of exposure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Anderton

I mean, what's the big deal? They don't like Bush, said so, then did a song about what happened because they didn't like Bush and said so. Is this really such an earth-shaking big deal that they belong on the cover of freakin' Time magazine?

 

I'm very surprised by this thread, started by you.

 

I've been gone for three out of the past four weeks. Only have checked in a couple of times. So, I haven't seen this forum or read any thread or read Times Magazine.

 

But what I do know (my opinion) is that the railroading of the Dixie Chicks was one of THE most momentus events of my life, music-wise. It was SO unfair. It shows me how stupid people are.

 

I'm surprised you don't get it, Craig. To each his own. Maybe you're a neocon. I don't think so, but that would explain your post. But if not, I'm surprised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by MrKnobs



Well, there's this weird thing called
principles...


Terry D.

 

No, it wasn't about principles at all. They insulted all country music fans. Not just the conservative ones. Despite what the media would have you believe we're not a homogenous group of far-right-wing, ultra-conservative people.

 

I took it as a personal insult that, as a fan of a wide variety of country music, past and present, that they dismissed me as a fan for identifying myself as such. The statements they released were as cut and dry as Bush's infamous statement to the world that they're either with us or against us in the war on terror. Either you could be a country music fan or a Dixie Chicks fan, but not both which is untrue and insulting to those of us who stand by their right to say what they want, but feel they must take responsibility for the consequences.

 

As many have said here, you can say just about anything you want in the U.S., but that doesn't mean others must accept it.

 

I've said it before and I'll say it again; I'm sick and tired of people ranting on and on about their rights in this country while simultaneously dismissing their responsibilities directly connected with those rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I'm confused - are you saying that being called a redneck is an insult?? What about, say, Gretchen Wilson?

 

Or, more to the point: do they not deserve just a bit of slack for having not only their their comments attacked, but their careers, their friends, their homes, their character...?m

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

Originally posted by fantasticsound



This, to me, is the crux. Not only did she insult a large part of the intended audience, the Chicks
announced
they were leaving country music after this whole furor began.

 

At that point, the country music machine had pretty much left them (turned on them even), so I guess her pronouncement was a moot point.

 

Terry D.

 

P.S. And as I've said before, Natalie is a right brained person who tends to speak emotionally and doesn't always apply the customary filters. I say good for her, sometimes feathers need ruffling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by fantasticsound



No, it wasn't about principles at all. They insulted
all
country music fans.

 

I dunno, Neil. I'm certainly a country music fan but I was not insulted, and, in fact, gave them thumbs up. What they went through was beyond belief. I understood WHY they said some of the things they said. In fact, I embraced much of what they said. Because it was truth. Which is sometimes ugly.

 

I'm not saying they've done everything perfectly but with what went down, I'd be one to give them some leeway, even if I *was* offended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Anderton

I mean, what's the big deal? They don't like Bush, said so, then did a song about what happened because they didn't like Bush and said so. Is this really such an earth-shaking big deal that they belong on the cover of freakin' Time magazine? I think not. Right now they're on Larry King, and the home page on AOL trumpets Dixie Chicks album back at No. 1. Is this what passes for news these days?


And I don't care about Tom Cruise, Angelina Jolie, Katie Holmes, Denise Richards, Heather Locklear, any of them. Why do people spend any time whatsoever being interested in this kind of stuff?

ignoring the entire rest of this thread...

 

If you don't care for celebrity gossip...

 

STOP READING TIME MAGAZINE, AND STOP WATCHING LARRY KING!!!1!

 

ok... I feel better now.

:)

 

 

adn to answer the original question... apparently people do care about this stuff, since this is like the longest thread on sss ever.

:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Originally posted by chunkathalon

adn to answer the original question... apparently people do care about this stuff, since this is like the longest thread on sss ever.

:D

Correct. And as always as happens on this board; nobodys mind was changed. Some see this as a free speech issue and some do not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I didn't read/hear the referenced "insults" though when I searched just now, here's how the NY Times crit Kelefa Sanneh characterized what may have been the quote:


On "60 Minutes" Ms. Maguire told Steve Kroft that their concerts weren't typical country concerts. "When I looked out in the audience, I didn't see rednecks," she said. (Did her lip curl slightly as she pronounced the r-word?) "I saw a more progressive crowd."

 

I was raised to think that "redneck" was not to be taken as a perjorative -- that a man's neck was red because he was working in the hot sun.

 

And I don't think "redneck" should be synonomous with "right wing" -- since I know more than a few self-described rednecks who are ANYTHING but pro-Bush.

 

But, as as a roots country fan, I think it's an absurd fantasy to think the average Nashville pop fan is anywhere close to a redneck, in the classic sense of the word. He/she is often as not suburban, with a "regular" job -- and his country pop music needs are serviced these days by people who wouldn't know an honest day's work if it walked up and kicked them in their silver cocaine straw...

 

 

And -- one last thing -- about those country roots...

 

The Dixie Chicks could hardly get a tumble with "country radio" fans when they actually sounded country... despite the fact they had killer instrumentals (Martie Seidel won third place honors at the National Fiddle Championships) and strongly roots flavored singing, it wasn't until they switched singers and developed a "smoother" less countrified sound that their sales to "country fans" took off...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Originally posted by Jotown

Lee, you are missing the bigger point. That a small group of people could literally take away their only means of getting their music out and in effect taking away their ability to make a living is a big deal. The beatles thing was different because it was much broader in scope.


This is a free speech issue at a time when free speech is being attacked and limited. I think that the reason so many news outlets are covering them is because it is news and they see it for what it is; a free speech issue.


Also a good publicist doesn't hurt.
:D

 

How did this small group take away the DC's only means of getting their music out? Did they call up every studio owner in America and tell them not to let the Dixie Chicks record there?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
×
  • Create New...