Shut Up And Sing

[Fitswimmer]

Yes. Wikipedia aside, I've studied the blacklist and this period of history, and I understand how many people had their livlihoods crushed by the overzealous fear mongering of McCarthy and Nixon. And what you are seemingly saying is that censorship is bad ONLY when artists are left broke. In other words, a little censorship is not so bad. Talk about your slippery slope...

You can't run around whining about what a poor victim of censorship you are when you're having the most successful year of your entire career. IF what had happened had actually hurt their careers at all, it would be a different story. They gained a larger outlet for their music and their views than they ever had before. They had magazines, they had talk shows, they had newspaper articles and now they have a documentary. There are people in my office that would never have heard of them if the NY radio stations didn't play them-and that didn't happen until after the "event". They played them on my niece's college radio station at Kent State, which led her to buy the CD. Not the market I would usually associate with country artists.

I simply can't equate that kind of success with censorship. Did they anger some people, yes. Should those angry folks have sent death threats and disrupted concerts-of course not. But those are individual acts, not government or corporate sponsored censorship. If country listeners told the stations they didn't want to hear them, the station is going to do what it's listeners want because that's how they stay on the air. No listeners, no advertising dollars. The decision to not play the music on country radio came from the people who listen to country radio, not from the company that owns it.

 

[Fitswimmer]

Just finished watching the documentary. First off, I'm a fan of the Dixie Chicks music, I have their music on my iPod and I love "Taking the Long Way Home." I liked it so much that I bought it for my DN, a college student who wasn't really into country but really loved it.
It's a sin that people got so crazy over what Natalie said that they threatened to shoot them. The radio station managers interviewed were pretty clear that the reason they stopped playing the Chicks music because the people that listen to their stations and support their advertisers didn't want to hear it. Business decision, pure and simple, the same business decision that got radio stations in NYC to start playing the Chicks when customers in this area started to request them.

The other thing I noticed in the documentary that the instant reaction from the Chicks and their crew was that anyone who didn't agree what Natalie said was an "ignorant red-neck". Please, that's just the reverse attitude of the folks that were protesting them! Other than the folks who went WAY over the top into the death threat area (who should have been arrested BTW), anyone who chose to protest the concerts or call their radio stations was exercising the same right to free speech.

Hopefully, the whole drama over this is done now and the Chicks will be back to making music. If the next CD is anywhere near as good as the last one, I'll be buying at least one!

 

[What the Heck]

But isn't it just a matter of degrees? Or maybe it's just a matter of $$$? It's curious to me that you would know so much about the blacklist during the Cold War era and be sympathetic toward those artists but not toward artists today who take controversial positions. What financial level makes the offense against artists acceptable?

The culture wars today have some very scary parallels to today's conservative backlash against "Blue State Entertainment."

About the same way it is of someone being hit by a passing car and someone watching the car pass outside their living room window.

As someone who has been out of work for months, and with the depression that went with it, you lose all sense of self worth. If it goes on long enough, I can easily see how it could lead to suicide. I was out of work for months, those who were black listed were black listed for years and years.

This situation actually turned out well for the Dixie Chicks. Prior to their "performance" I really didn't know who they were. Now they have a movie about it, they have an album from it, they are making good, good money from it. To compare them "as a matter of degrees" is a slap at those who really did go through being black listed.

 

[What the Heck]

Yes. Wikipedia aside, I've studied the blacklist and this period of history, and I understand how many people had their livlihoods crushed by the overzealous fear mongering of McCarthy and Nixon. And what you are seemingly saying is that censorship is bad ONLY when artists are left broke. In other words, a little censorship is not so bad. Talk about your slippery slope...

I just went to dictionary.com and looked up censorship. I can't find any defination that fits what you are trying to say it means.

The Dixie Chicks were not censored by the federal government for what they said, they were slapped on the wrist by their own fans. Or are you saying their fans should have their rights taken away from them and be censored? Now that is a slippery slope. Should we set up a direct deposit from all of their fans so that when a new album comes out, it's automatically deducted whether they want to buy it or not?

 

[What the Heck]

You are incorrect the Dixie Chicks haven't really been played anywhere. They aren't Top 40 and they aren't country, rock, or alternative which leaves no real place to play them. At work my coworker listens to a pop station - never heard them there either. I'd be willing to bet people who don't have the CD have never heard more than the first single.

I heard them 3 times last week on the radio station I listen to at work (they claim "we play anything"). I don't know about you, but I would gladly give one of them every dollar I made last year in exchange for every dollar they made last year.

 

[What the Heck]

So, what you're basicially saying is that you're OK with corporate censorship...a lot of people are, so I get it. But once you starting going down that road, you're in trouble. I'm not comfortable with corporations limiting what views I have access to as an American citizen. And I believe that my rights as a citizen extend beyond by rights in the consumer marketplace.

BTW- not all of the artists under investigation during the McCarthy investigations lost everything. The committee (including Nixon) was corrupt and bowed under public pressure. Take Arthur Miller, for example. Had he not been married to Marilyn Monroe at the time, his refusal to name names would have placed him at the top of the blacklist. His public profile saved him, and made hypocrites out of the committee. Miller's career continued uninterrupted BECAUSE he had acess to the media and used it to his advantage.

I see a lot of parallels in what the Dixie Chicks did. They only came back because of their willingness to "speak truth to power" and their use of the media to their advantage.



I don't think these things are as far apart as you think. Consumers don't buy CDs they don't have access to; artists need access to the mechanism of corporate distribution. Consumers don't watch TV shows that aren't placed on the air; writers and directors that produce controversial work are censored in todays marketplace.

Now it's Corporate Censorship? So business' don't have the right to make decisions that are in their best interests? Tell me, do you watch every tv show on the air? Isn't that censorship? Do you eat every food available? Isn't that censorship? Do you listen to every song ever made? Isn't that censorship?

The Dixie Chicks didn't "speak truth to power" they made a publicity stunt that, in the end, worked out very well for them.

It's really, really hard for me to feel sorry for them. They weren't being "attacked" by any government agency, only by their fans. Even after the event, they still sold some songs, they were still played in some places. They didn't even go through complete censorship after their comments. Oh boo hoo, they didn't sell out the next 10 or 20 concerts they had (the ones that hadn't already sold out). They had to settle for only have as many hundereds of thousands as they would have made if they had kept their mouth shut. They were still allowed to make music, they were still allowed to go on tour. Please.

 

[kayeandjim00]

I heard them 3 times last week on the radio station I listen to at work (they claim "we play anything"). I don't know about you, but I would gladly give one of them every dollar I made last year in exchange for every dollar they made last year.

Did you hear "Not Ready To Make Nice" or another cut? What I make vs what they make isn't really the point so I don't know where you are going with that one. It's apples to oranges.

 

[What the Heck]

Did you hear "Not Ready To Make Nice" or another cut? What I make vs what they make isn't really the point so I don't know where you are going with that one. It's apples to oranges.

Not really, not when people are comparing what happend to them to what happened in the McCarthy hearings. Those that were blacklisted didn't make anything for quite some time, whereas the Dixie Chicks I'm sure didn't have a problem getting fed. The people who were blacklisted I'm sure made a lot less per year than I do, even with adjustments for inflation, after they were blacklisted. Comparatively, the Dixie Chicks had a slight deflation for a time (still making more I'm sure than the average person) and now are making more than they have before - yet they are so picked on. Please.

Edited to add: I'm not a big Dixie Chicks fan (hard to tell huh?), so I didn't notice what songs they were. I know one was a remake of "These Dreams", which I didn't like.