I am not a fan of the Dixie Chicks. I actually really enjoyed their first album.
I am sure everyone knows most of the story about them mouthing off about GWB. I am not a fan of airing dirty laundry in foreign countries. Roxy has already beat me to the punch, but I cannot (actually I can which is sad) that they would be rewarded for doing this. Their last album is not very good musically, the sole reason they won was that the mainstream now likes to bash President Bush.
**Sidebar: Scott has a great blog on how we as Christians should not bash anyone.
Now, if they had won with an outstanding album I could live with it. I generally don't care much for any major artists personal life (although many fortunately keep it to themselves), but they won with a rant called "Not ready to make nice".
Another reason not to watch the Grammy's...
On a side not Anna Nicole Smith died this past weekend. The real story is: Why in the world is this big news?
39 comments:
I thought it was a tremendous album. I don't really care for the message behind "Not Ready to Make Nice" but the music is tremendous.
But you are right, the Grammys are the worst excuse for a major awards show.
I watched the beginning just to see The Police. I liked seeing them again. I left it on until the Chicks came on and I was forced to turn the channel. Nothing to do with their politics, but I just don't like country music (although there are a few rare exceptions). Plus, I figured I don't listen to a great deal of the music being "honored" anyway.
BTW, Kenny, I posted about your Gators today...
I also thought the album was great. I would understand if people didn't like the message of "Not Ready to Make Nice", but I thought the musical style of their latest album was much richer than their previous work. More of a rock sound, which, if you liked their previous stuff, wouldn't be as appealing.
Just my two cents.
My point was that no matter what you feel about their music, they won all those awards because of their stance politically... and that is what makes me sick
Kenny,
Since I don't know Roxy but I do know you, you get the distinct honor of my response to Roxy's post that you referenced.
Roxy said:
But it concerns me that not only this group but so many who achieve fame via music or athletics begin to take themselves so seriously and use the microphone to push an agenda that is poorly thought out.
This makes me crazy. Thousands of Americans dead in Iraq, tens to hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis, hundreds of billions of dollars spent, billions of dollars completely unaccounted for, and what do we have to show for it: Iraq in a state of chaos and anarchy, the perfect breeding ground and recruiting tool for terrorists. And, of course, it's the Dixie Chicks who had a poorly thought out agenda!
I would say saying "President Bush sucks" to me is not really a well thought out plan, but rather a personal attack...
Getting further into this it seems quite easy to point out flaws in a plan, but I have yet to see a plan being proposed by the others (even those running for office) that is realistic.
However, you could argue that Roxy is against the Dixie Chicks voicing an opinion, but I wonder if he was upset about Tony Dungy voicing an opinion...
Just a little devil's advocate there.
I'm not sure the DC's or anyone else is "taking themselves too seriously." I think they're just voicing their opinions. It seems people are generally more annoyed or offended by such people when they voice a different opinion than their own.
You mentioned Dungy. If he was a Muslim, many of the people who praised his comments would be condemning them now, IMO, were he giving thanks to Allah. Same with the DC's. If they were making pro-Iraq war comments and supporting President Bush, many of those condemning them now would likely be praising them as well.
Like I said, I suspect we all are more prone to being outraged at those who voice their opinion when it's not our own.
Agree. My problem is them being rewarded JUST BECAUSE of their politics one way or the other. But especially because they are on the other side :)
Kenny,
I don't listen to the DC and so I have no opinion about the quality of the album, but Scott and Greg seem to be questioning the assumption that they won JUST BECAUSE of their politics.
You wrote:
I would say saying "President Bush sucks" to me is not really a well thought out plan, but rather a personal attack...
I agree that the criticism is lacking a certain eloquence, but it isn't strictly personal (in an unfair sense). It's a generic criticism of Bush's actions as governor and president.
You wrote:
Getting further into this it seems quite easy to point out flaws in a plan
Now that's an understatement!
You wrote:
I have yet to see a plan being proposed by the others (even those running for office) that is realistic.
Is there a realistic way to unscramble these eggs? I'm not optimistic. I'd prefer to stay indefinitely and fix the chaos and destruction, but I'm not sure if we have the resources nor if staying would be as much a part of the problem as a part of the solution.
Jon: That is just the point. We must stay and fix it. Yet look at all the opponents to a plan of getting more people to finish the problem.
So do you think the DC's would have won all those awards if they had made public comments supporting Bush and the war?
I don't think an awards show should become a forum for pushing political agendas and that's obviously what the Grammy's were this year, but you'll get that with any awards show. Who cares if their album was good or bad, it is pretty obvious why then won and that's the sad part.
It would be a disappointment if they had won for voicing opinions supporting the war and Bush too though. Awards shows should be awarding people for their skills, whether singing or writing music or screen plays, not rewarding them for having a similar political view. That just takes all the fun out of it.
In the end, thank goodness for our country and our soldiers and our freedoms. In other countries we could all be arrested for writing things like this.
The media loves the ditzy twits because it is another platform for the left to push the Bush screwed up agenda.
We are in one mell of a hess and the reps have the best idea so far and that is that we have to fix it while the dems just want to cut 'n run. Too late to do that (not that we ever should)
I'm so happy for the Dixie Chicks! They were never my favorite group, but they have guts and spunk, and I'm a huge fan now!
They DID NOT say "President Bush sucks" as you state, but so what if they did?? They have every right to their opinion and to voice their opinion. And why does someone else have to have a "plan" where the "commander" and "decider" in chief has never had one??
In case you haven't figured it out, this Iraq war thing makes my blood boil!! And I've already been labeled unChristian and unAmerican so say whatever you want. It's Bush's way or else. What has happened to this country??? We're willing to give up all our rights because of this man's fear??
"this man's fear" - right because he is the only one who has the fear of an airplane being hijacked and used as a bomb or a 'cell' forming here and blowing up market places (i.e. London train bombings)
I'd love to be proven wrong, but I have no confidence that adding another 20,000 troops is going to fix anything.
I am a huge Dixie Chick's fan! I was so thrilled to see them win their 5 grammy awards last night. They are very talented singers and musicians. I do not feel that they were awarded a Grammy last night because of their politics. Before Natalie Maines's comments in 2003, they had been recognized with a total of 25 musical awards. Since 1999, they received 9 grammy awards. These girls are very talented and they have been rewarded for it before last night.
I really don't understand why so many people harbor such hateful thoughts for them. In March of 2003, Natalie Maines's made this comment, "Just so you know, we are ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas". That's it! An opinion! George Bush said (in reaction to their comment), "I don't really care what the Dixie Chicks said. I want to do what I think is right for the American people, and if some singers or Hollywood stars feel like speaking out, that's fine. That's the great thing about America." I really appreciate the apology that Maines' issued a few days later, "As a concerned American citizen, I apologize to President Bush because my remark was disrespectful. I feel that whoever holds that office should be treated with the utmost respect. We are currently in Europe and witnessing a huge anti-American sentiment as a result of the perceived rush to war. While war may remain a viable option, as a mother, I just want to see every possible alternative exhausted before children and American soldiers' lives are lost. I love my country. I am a proud American."
Did you know that even the American Red Cross rejected a 1 million dollar donation from them? Just because they are the Dixie Chicks. That is just pathetic!
I am very pleased that the Dixie Chicks were honored last night for their music! They truly deserved each and every one of their Grammys. I really wish that some people would just let this stuff go. It's been 3 long years!
Sunny, I was waiting for your response. Very well stated, but you left off that after Maines apologized she reverted back to her former stance with this:
On April 24, the Dixie Chicks launched a publicity campaign to explain their position. During a prime-time interview with TV personality Diane Sawyer, Maines said she remained proud of her original statement.
The Chicks also have gone on the record several times saying they do not support President Bush, which is there choice.
Here are some lyrics from their grammy award winning song as well:
"I’m not ready to make nice
I’m not ready to back down
I’m still mad as hell and I don’t have time to go 'round and 'round and 'round
It’s too late to make it right
I probably wouldn’t if I could
‘Cause I’m mad as hell
Can’t bring myself to do what it is you think I should"
Here is what I found about the red cross donation:
"Also in 2003, the American Red Cross refused an 1 million USD offer from the Dixie Chicks. The organization did not publicize the refusal; it was revealed by the Chicks themselves in a May 2006 interview on the Howard Stern Show on SIRIUS Satellite Radio. [3] According to National Red Cross spokesperson Julie Thurmond Whitmer, the band would have made the donation "only if the American Red Cross would embrace the band's summer tour," writes Ms. Whitmer, referring to the group's 2003 U.S. tour after the London incident.
“ The Dixie Chicks controversy made it impossible for the American Red Cross to associate itself with the band because such association would have violated two of the founding principles of the organization: impartiality and neutrality...Should the Dixie Chicks like to make an unconditional financial donation to the American Red Cross, we will gladly accept it"
I am not saying the Chicks cannot be against the war, many are. What I am saying is they were rewarded for being anti-Bush, not great musicians.
But that's just the point of Sunny's post. They were rewarded as great musicians by the Grammys well BEFORE their much publicized comment and the subsequent backlash. It's not that they were just rewarded for bashing the Prez.
Kenny,
I have listened to this new Chicks album many, many times (Lisa is a big fan, and could care less about their political outspokenness). I can tell you that it is my opinion that this album is lackluster, at best. There are a couple of good songs on it, but as you put it, it is mostly a rant. They spend considerable time lyrically flipping the bird to their fans.
They won Grammys because of their political stand, not because of good music. They won the Grammy for best country album, yet they claim to not be a country band anymore.
When they did win, they were as classless and tasteless as people can be. Natalie is so unintelligent, she assumed that it was the people validating their actions, when in reality, it is the industry that gives these awards, people who are as liberal as they claim to be.
I have a rant of my own on my site this morning, and I am afraid that I did not follow Scott's advice about labeling people. My contention is that this is no longer about their politics, or freedom of speech. This is about career suicide, and trying to be something you're not.
Good thought everyone. Way to keep it civil (for the most part) but still back up your opinions.
Let me say again that I could care less about the DC's. I don't really like that kind of music and I also don't care what they say. I don't have a problem with them saying whatever they want.
But there seems to be a lot of people (not just here) saying they won because of their politics. My question is: what is the evidence of that they won simply because of their politics? I've seen it stated as fact, but I'm not sure I've seen anything that explains how this is known.
My problem with what they said is that what was said was dissending to America and it's leader at a time of war and they said it in a foreign country. Jane Fonda?
should be condisending
Wow, a lot of opinions. There are several tracks that this discussion could go. At the core needs to be a greater dissection on the relevance and accuracy of the Grammy Awards. They routinely, in my opinion, miss the boat and award substandard acts.
We could go back and look at their propensity for rewarding older acts that try to revive their career by collaborating with other artists. (Do we really believe that Tony Bennett and Stevie Wonder put out some of the best music of the past year?)
With that said we also have to understand why The Dixie Chicks were awarded so thoroughly this past Sunday.
Did Politics play a part? Of course it did. I agree with most of their politics and I can still admit that it colored the judgment of those who voted.
Did musical ability and a great album factor into the voting? Or course it did. Regardless of whether or not you like there is a large percentage of people who find it to be a phenomenal album. And regardless of what you might think, they are extremely talented musicians who (as it has been pointed out, have won frequently in the past) can flat out play.
Did voter sympathy factor in? Of course it did. Those who agree with them politically naturally feel sympathy for the backlash they received. If it happened to an artist on the other side of the aisle the results would have been similar.
Now, as to the worthiness of their awards: who should have beat them in the respective categories?
James Blunt? Get serious.
Gnarls Barkley? That's a novelty tune at best.
Are any of us going to claim that Justin Timberlake should have won?
So, sure there were a confluence of factors that led to their sweep of the awards. But the argument that it was solely politics alone that did it is myopic.
Scott: As always well stated. In the post I mentioned that I liked the Chicks first Album, it was very good. They are talented musicians. Their last album did not deserve to win solely on its own artistic value. That was my point. If they had not said anything about politics (one way or the other) they may have won a grammy, but not five for that album. JasonK points out that it was not even a very high selling album.
I think it was a high selling album with now over two million units. With the advent of digital music the numbers are different. It was still the 9th best selling album of the year. Considering it came out at the end of May that's not too bad.
Jon,
Admittedly, I'm an expert on neither the DCs nor Jane Fonda, but from what little I remember about their controversial actions, equating the two seems kind of shallow to me. Hanging out at a photo op with the enemy seems to me to be a different level of bad juju than expressing dissatisfaction with our leadership.
I'm really bothered by the notion that dissent and criticism should be squelched because we're at war and that we should bend over (backwards?) to censor ourselves lest we embolden an enemy. These guys are pretty frakking bold as it is. I think we benefit much more than they do when we take a healthy critical look at our actions and their consequences. I think it's just a convenient excuse to smother criticism.
Jon: My only difference with that is that we keep our dirty laundry over here, and not air it in another country. But again, as I have said, the issue with me is not what they said (they are free to speak their mind), it is that they were rewarded for being anti-Bush.
ditto kenny
Fair enough, though I struggle a little bit understanding why the location is so critical considering what global communication is like these days.
Why not say it in London? Or anywhere else for that matter. After all, aren't the Brits (Tony Blair) among Bush's best friends?? Face it - this war is a giant mess. Sadly for the Dixie Chicks, they spoke out while so many of the rest of us were afraid to say anything. We'd already been labeled unChristian and unAmerican because we didn't fall hook, line, and sinker for the lies our President told. I'm so embarrassed for our country . . . for all of you still thinking it's a great thing, it's not too late to put your money where your mouth is . . . the military has reduced their requirements - they'll take about anything that can stand upright. Go for it! Your yellow ribbon doesn't cut it.
I thought it was sad that anna nichole died. It was so obvious she was so lost.
I agree with Roxy. Celebrities should keep their fat mouths shut and do what theyre good at...acting, singing, etc. Because I dont care what they think, whether the war is a mess or not.
People love to make controversy on your blog.
One of the dixie chicks has a lazy eye.
Ashley: Didn't know that one had a lazy eye. I don't mind celebs talking, as long as we realize not to take them seriously.
bpb: It is ironic that you seem to compare this war to one where a draft was installed. I don't see anyone being "forced" to go to Iraq. Seems to me these are enlisted men that have CHOSEN the honorable duty of serving their country.
Again, my point with the chicks is they are free to say whatever and wherever they want, I just don't like to see "music" awards given for politics.
I think it's pathetic that 1) y'all just had such a lengthy conversation about something so petty, and 2) I actually read it. Ok, so I only read some of it.
Lerra: Agree that it is funny to touch a nerve. At least it was not about Anna Nicole Smith :)
WOW! Since I have been referenced a few times in this epic novel allow me to summarize my opinion. The Dixie Chicks are free to say whatever they like, wherever they like. I respect and appreciate that right. I am thankful that people in the past have fought and endured critism so that we have it. Likewise, country fans and stations have the same right and used it to express disagreement with the DC's. They still have talent and still sell music and maybe derserve some of the awards. But country album of the year? Come on! My post was not about the stance of the chicks but rather that the grammy itself was a political statement. That, too, is fine if everybody understands that and does not confuse it with actually meaning that professionals considered this group better than everybody else at what they do. Now I know that and would like to spread the word. Obviously,Kenny, you are spreading is better than I am. Way to go!
Kenny Simpson said...
bpb: It is ironic that you seem to compare this war to one where a draft was installed. I don't see anyone being "forced" to go to Iraq. Seems to me these are enlisted men that have CHOSEN the honorable duty of serving their country.
Again, my point with the chicks is they are free to say whatever and wherever they want, I just don't like to see "music" awards given for politics.
OKAY if they aren't "forced" to be in Iraq, why are so many committing suicide? Why are they being courtmartialed for refusing to deploy? My point is if it's an all-volunteer army, why can't you UNvolunteer???
Post a Comment