Shut up & Sing

[Veruka]

I'm not implying that the reason behind the original comment was solely for publicities sake. Rather, I'm pointing out that in the film, their manager suggests getting people to burn CDs and organize boycotts against them, because it would bring them so much press. Their publicist expresses her concerns over their posing for the EW cover, and they comment about how they'd never get such attention if it was not for "the comment". And in the biggest example of all, the film was presented as a documentary about free speech when the truth is that it's as much about free speech as "Abba: The Movie" is a documentary promoting Australian travell. It is a movie that was brillantly put together to market their latest album, and tell the story of the creation of the songs on their album.

I agree with you 100% on the presence of politics in music. But I don't think that means that every time that music and politics mix, the motivation is politics. I don't think that artists and performers deserve a free pass to be listened to always when they speak up on political matters. When they're doing so to promote themselves (example: An actress who is suddenly moved to go visit orphans in Mexico right at the same time her new big film is coming out, but a year later seems to have forgotten that there are orphans in Mexico) I applaud those who greet the action with cynicism.

[Google]

 

[myrosiedog]

Originally Posted by Veruka

Do you draw a distinction between an artist expressing his or her political views from the heart, and a performer using a political platform for purposes of self-promotion?

Politicians do self promotion all the time. Entertainers HAVE to do self promotion to get ahead.

Personally I don't care how they do it if it makes the public more aware.

Awareness needs to be raised in this country and I'd rather see an entertainer raise political awareness, support certain movements, charities, politicians than to see them as negative role models a la Michael Vick, Dennis Rodmen and Brittany Spears.

So if they do it to get ahead, so what. In this case, maybe the ends do justify the means.

[Veruka]

Originally Posted by myrosiedog

Politicians do self promotion all the time. Entertainers HAVE to do self promotion to get ahead.

Personally I don't care how they do it if it makes the public more aware.

Awareness needs to be raised in this country and I'd rather see an entertainer raise political awareness, support certain movements, charities, politicians than to see them as negative role models a la Michael Vick, Dennis Rodmen and Brittany Spears.

So if they do it to get ahead, so what. In this case, maybe the ends do justify the means.

Yes, entertainers have to do self-promotion, but that is not the point I was making in the question I posed. Entertainers taking poltical stands had been defended, which I agree with, when those stands come from the heart. However, there are also times when entertainers take a political stand not because it is something they believe in, but as a method of self-promotion. I question whether or not the same level of weight should be given to a celebrity's political stand when it is for self-promotion and not for being a part of the process.

I also agree with you with regards to raising awareness. But bringing it back to the Dixie Chicks - was awareness raised? Natalie Maines comment was a statement that the Chicks were on the side of their British audience - "the good side" as she put it, and that they were embarassed that Bush was from Texas. What awareness was raised by that statement?

In short, I don't think that all political statements are created equally, nor do I beleive that every statement made about current affairs is in fact a political statement.

[AJane]

Though I'm not a particular fan of the Dixie Chicks, I did watch the movie and I do believe that Veruka makes a valid point about the opportunistic nature of the Chicks' reaction to the fallout from The Comment. Having said that, though, I'm not sure that they had much choice in how to play out the hand they dealt themselves. They could either apologize, which would be galling (since Natalie Maines obviously meant what she said) or be defiant and dig their heels in. Basically, a lose-lose proposition. I can't blame them for deciding to reinvent themselves as left-wing good ol' girls. They still have plenty of fans, though, and probably picked up a few new ones as a result...though maybe not enough to make up for the diehards they lost.

[myrosiedog]

Originally Posted by Veruka

Yes, entertainers have to do self-promotion, but that is not the point I was making in the question I posed. Entertainers taking poltical stands had been defended, which I agree with, when those stands come from the heart. However, there are also times when entertainers take a political stand not because it is something they believe in, but as a method of self-promotion. I question whether or not the same level of weight should be given to a celebrity's political stand when it is for self-promotion and not for being a part of the process.

I also agree with you with regards to raising awareness. But bringing it back to the Dixie Chicks - was awareness raised? Natalie Maines comment was a statement that the Chicks were on the side of their British audience - "the good side" as she put it, and that they were embarassed that Bush was from Texas. What awareness was raised by that statement?

In short, I don't think that all political statements are created equally, nor do I beleive that every statement made about current affairs is in fact a political statement.

My neice was living in Austin at the time and she shared Natalies sentiments exactly.

People say things like this ALL the time. Entertainers just get it repeated in the news.

[Veruka]

Originally Posted by AJane

Though I'm not a particular fan of the Dixie Chicks, I did watch the movie and I do believe that Veruka makes a valid point about the opportunistic nature of the Chicks' reaction to the fallout from The Comment. Having said that, though, I'm not sure that they had much choice in how to play out the hand they dealt themselves. They could either apologize, which would be galling (since Natalie Maines obviously meant what she said) or be defiant and dig their heels in. Basically, a lose-lose proposition. I can't blame them for deciding to reinvent themselves as left-wing good ol' girls. They still have plenty of fans, though, and probably picked up a few new ones as a result...though maybe not enough to make up for the diehards they lost.

You make a great point about the damned if you do damned if you don't aspect of the situation they were facing. I think you're right - digging their heels in was the better choice. But was it really necessary to bring out a tractor to dig the hole to put their heels in?

I love the Dixie Chicks music. I own all their albums, and credit Natalie's voice for a great deal of the appeal of the group. I disagreed with her comments, but that does not take away from their music as far as I'm concerned. But I went from being a fan of the group to being a fan of their music (if that makes any sense) not because of the comment, but because of the way they handled the aftermath. I understand completely why Natalie ended up saying what she did, and refusing to back down from the comment. But I don't understand why she felt it was necessary to take it further by bashing their fans.

While there was a small group of looney fans who participated in protests and what not, there were also fans who disagreed with them about Bush, but stuck with them. When she started bashing country fans, with the redneck comments and what not, she was bashing those who stood next to them in disagreement too. (some of those people were shown in the movie at their concerts holding sings with messages about disagreeing but still supporting and what not) To me, it would be as if a small fire broke out in one room of Natalie's house, was extinguished, and instead of hiring a contractor to repair that room, she chose to burn down the entire house, declare the land unworthy for habitation, and move to a new house in a different state.

What makes it worse, in my mind, is that I've never gotten the feeling that Martie and Emily share Natalie's desire to get away from country music. They're the two who started the group, they are proud of their roots in country, and I think it's kind of sad that they're being taken down this road because of a lead singer who was never much for country music even before all of this started. That's why I think the scene where they were talking to th guy from the Red Hot Chili Peppers was so prophetic.