Lee Flier

To me it seems like commentary that applies even more today. People's heads are in the clouds. People are more concerned with obtaining wealth or dreaming about the stars and making it big, rather than facing their day to day issues and relationships with real people. People are caught up with fantasy and in some cases know more about the lives of celebrities than they know about themselves and people around them. It reminds me of the lyric from Curtis Mayfield's Freddies Dead. "We can deal with rockets and dreams, but reality what does it mean?" I dunno thats what I get out of it. Me too.

I agree with you. But it's strange... I don't see my interpretation as literal at all. The mention of NASA and space travel... no, no. It was only mentioned because this was a hot topic at the time. It is NOT about that. The image is symbolic, made more powerful because of it. That's all. Yeah, my feelings exactly.

I don't see it as a political critique of wasteful spending on the space race. A critique of selfishness? Yes. A critique of modern life gone wrong? Yes. Well I think my point was that the space race was prominent in people's minds at the time and was considered a good example (by some) of the selfishness and what had gone wrong with modern life. I don't think the song is a critique of wasteful spending, per se, just that the space race was kind of a symptom of what the song was talking about.

Pretty good summation there, Lee. I'd agree with that. "Arms that can only lift a spoon" also conjures up images of those born with a silver spoon in their mouths. People who can't do any real work, IOW, and generally won't lift a finger to help anyone else.

I always wondered if that song wasn't somewhat literal too. JFK promised to send a man to the moon. In 1965, it hadn't been done yet, but people were fixated on the idea. Of course many thought the idea of space exploration was grand and noble, but others saw it as folly - another example of man endlessly coveting what is beyond his reach and vacating the present life and the planet we live on, leaving it empty and uncared for.

WOOOOO!!!!! *raises cigarette lighter in air* *cranks Ampeg to 11* *launches into "Won't Get Fooled Again"*

Comrade Mazi Bee, I and my trusty Les Paul pledge to FIGHT TO THE DEATH TO SAVE ROCK'N'ROLL!! We have many battle scars, but they have only made us stronger and make us RAWK HARDER!!! May we join your honorable crew?

Never was a Duran fan, but it's interesting: I've seen quite a few 80's bands recently who are as good or better than they were 20-25 years ago. And many of em seem like they're having a better time and look better/healthier. I think a lot of those bands were pretty screwed up on coke in those days which also made them have unbearable attitudes. Now that they're a bit older and have cleaned up it seems they're better than "back in the day."

Originally posted by LiveMusic He has? Can you enlighten me? (I'd really like to know.) I found this CNN link which mentioned two songs. "Jimmy's Road," Vietnam-era song, and "Whatever Happened To Peace On Earth," 2004 Christmas song with an anti-Bush slant. Yeah, and the Christmas song never got any airplay. He didn't expect it to; he never even tried to get it on mainstream radio because he knew it wasn't going to fly. It's around on the Internet though, and on a few compilations put together by the Democratic Party and various leftwing organizations. He's written a lot of songs like that over the years, and not released them in the mainstream. The guy has always been an active environmentalist and also an activist for Native American rights, and he's pissed off a lot of people in the process, and been arrested several times at protests, along with his pal Kris Kristofferson who's been active in the same causes with him. I personally saw quite a bit of this because I used to do a lot of volunteer work on reservations, and with environmental groups. Willie's been in actual trouble with the government WAAAYYY more than the Dixie Chicks and gotten far less media attention for it, kind of like when John Lennon nearly got deported in the 70's, and was branded a subversive and spied on by the Nixon administration for being a peace activist. That, friends, is real suppression of free speech. I guarantee you Willie Nelson has experienced it, and the mainstream media has been mostly silent about it while prattling on about inconsequential stuff like this Dixie Chicks thing. That's another reason it pisses me off that anybody takes the DC thing seriously - I see it as a convenient smokescreen to hide a lot of much worse stuff.

Exactly Bill. That's my feeling also and I've been saying that all along. I understand "the chronology" Jotown; that doesn't have anything to do with my point whatsoever. And what sort of "bias" are you talking about? Just because I don't agree with you means there must be some sort of agenda behind it? As to why I've posted so many times, I already answered that too: I think the thread turned out to be more interesting than the actual subject. I don't care about the Dixie Chicks and I don't think their "problem" deserves the attention it gets, but I do find it interesting to read what others have had to say about it.

Well I just dug up the NY Times article that blue quoted and it has some other very interesting stuff in there. The Nashville establishment is not politically monolithic. The most depressing thing about this whole episode is the way the Dixie Chicks have conflated politics and culture, Bush supporters and "rednecks." The unintended implication is that only sophisticated city folk oppose the war in Iraq, and only "rednecks" support the president. Faith Hill and Tim McGraw, country music's most popular couple, made headlines

Originally posted by Jotown For starters Steve Earl, Willie Nelson and Neil Young haven't gotten played on country music stations (or any stations for that matter) for a long time. I know - please read my post again. That's exactly what I said (so far as country stations). They do still get airplay actually, but not on mainstream country stations. Yet they still have vibrant active careers and nobody seems to be moaning that their free speech has been violated. They're just aware that politically and musically they're outside of the country music mainstream, so they don't expect to be accepted in those circles. Also; the DixChix have sold ten times more records this year than any of those guys even without country airplay. The reality is that their careers aren't going so hot while the Chix are red hot even while being blacklisted by country radio. Well then, again - why is anybody complaining that the DC have been so wronged? And I am not a Chix fan, but a fan of free speech and someone who is very much against McCarthyistic tactics against any one. Me too, and I've said so. I hate to say this Lee but you have gotten several facts wrong in this thread; yet you keep going back to your misconceptions about this story. Why is that? The only "fact" that I can see I've gotten wrong is that I was willing to believe (based on some of what's been said here) that the Dixie Chicks' career had suffered recently because of continued blacklisting. I was taking some of you guys' word for it because I simply haven't been following their career recently - I've never liked them enough to care how much they're selling. So notice I said "IF their career is flagging." Apparently now you're saying it isn't. Yet you said earlier in this thread: Originally posted by Jotown 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. It seems that when I made my original point that I felt the importance of this issue was exaggerated and that the Chicks were doing fine despite having been so "wronged," you and others claimed their career had suffered because of the blacklisting, but when I said maybe it was flagging (IF it was) for other reasons, now y'all are saying they're doing just fine. So which is it?

Originally posted by Rique "We have the right to refuse to serve anyone." I

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. Well I think the thread turned out to be a lot more interesting than the Dixie Chicks themselves. I think there are a couple of valid issues raised in the thread that are being seen as related, but I don't think they're necessarily related in this case: 1) Conglomeration of radio network ownership is a bad thing and there's a reason the FCC used to limit it. Used to. It is most definitely a threat to free expression to have the Clear Channels of the world be able to own so many stations. IMO this is a legitimate threat to free speech since the airwaves are public. 2) It seems the Dixie Chicks simply made a dumb move by deliberately alienating their fans, and not just with the Bush comments. I still think they thought it would actually help their career in the long term because they figured the hubbub created by their comments would alienate a lot of their existing crowd but the resulting publicity and their "outspokenness" would attract a whole different (and larger) fan base. So far I guess the move has backfired. But it's hardly a free speech issue when you essentially call your fans a bunch of dumb rednecks and then are surprised when country radio turns its back on you. I think this would have likely happened even without the conglomeration of radio ownership.

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

Originally posted by UstadKhanAli I doubt they tried to ruin their career on purpose, but I can't help but think that you'd have to be a moron not to realize that speaking out against Bush would alienate a lot of your fans. They may not have realized the severity of the backlash, but they would have realized that the statement was inflammatory. Exactly. Jotown, that's pretty disingenuous of you to say that anybody claimed they "tried to ruin their career on purpose." Nobody said they did that. If it really is true that 95% of country stations have blacklisted them, that's {censored}ed up in its own right, and I doubt seriously that the Chicks thought the backlash would have that kind of scope... but like Ken said, they could not have been unaware that the remark would cause problems with their "base" nor that the resulting brouhaha would likely turn out to be good publicity.

Originally posted by amplayer I used to agree that celebrity view foisting was dishonorable. However, I've had to rethink that because I came to the realization that celebrities are people too. Why shouldn't they be allowed to voice their opinions? Yeah exactly. If audiences don't like it, they don't have to buy the records. I don't tend to like overtly political music (I think Dylan is an example of somebody who does a great job of writing political stuff that is personal and never sounds dated, but most people fail at it), and I like political speeches at concerts even less. But I respect anybody's right to express their opinion and if they've managed to secure a bigger soapbox for themselves because they're famous for something else, so be it - at least somebody is on equal footing with the political hype machine, as a lot of us wish we were.

Originally posted by Brittanylips My favorite JDepp movie is What's Eating Gilbert Grape. Mine too! He and Leonardo di Caprio were just jaw dropping in that movie.

Originally posted by Brittanylips It's easy to be cynical about

Originally posted by Rique Well, you did say you thought it was contrived. I did think the reaction was contrived, and them saying their livelihood was being threatened and all that. The music itself, I have no idea. They probably are sincere about not liking Bush but I just think they chose to use it to their advantage.

Originally posted by Rique So, their comments weren

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. But... they didn't. 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. And that's just it; I think the whole thing was basically a publicity stunt. I don't think anybody's free speech was ever threatened. The DC said some stuff about the administration that some people didn't like, which is their right. Said people got all pissed off and boycotted them or whatever... which is their right. Some other people who didn't like the boycott stage an anti-boycott and made "heroes" out of them. They get on the cover of Time, nobody gets arrested or censored, they'll probably make a bunch of money off of it. And that's about it. I think it's silly and overblown and contrived personally, but whatever... if any of it made anybody actually think, then great.

Originally posted by Jotown That a non-important country act could get black listed and that a group of religious/bush zealots could legally organize an effort to ruin them is news. Why should it be illegal for them to organize such an effort? Their detractors have a right to free speech same as they do. People burned Beatles records and such after Lennon's "we're bigger than Jesus" remark, and it doesn't seem to have hurt their stature any - it did a good job of making the people doing the burning look foolish though. I think the campaign probably helps the DC as much as hurts it and ultimately, whether they gain or lose credibility will probably be decided by the quality of their music.

Originally posted by Jeff da Weasel It's really hard to get on the cover of Time. I know; I've tried. Yeah, I've been meaning to ask you where our Time cover piece is. Ya think if we write a song about hating Bush that would do the trick?

Originally posted by MrKnobs But I would like to go over and chat with some of the folks on that other forum and get their feedback. So she should get them all to come over here! RockGirl, tell all your pals there are a bunch of really cool under-appreciated musicians here that would love some attention, new fans and groupies.