they should expect no free-passes from the people of Texas. They are pop-singers for chrissakes; not philosopher-kings.

Im sick of seeing this pop up around the place. Did Dylan teach us nothing? Did… hell I could put a hundred names in that gap. Politics and Pop are not musically exclusively…and if they seem that way its a circumstantial condition which reflects pretty badly on the pop (as in popular, not as in catchy and pithy) music of our age.

Which is not to say that Team America wasnt funny.

No, John, nobody deserves a free pass (not even you), but they didn’t deserve to be vilified with a pack of sexist twaddle either.

“Darlene, is this right? Are you basing your insight into the USA upon what they saw in a movie?”

No Steve, I’m basing on the new show Californication. No, just kidding. No, not the USA, but the response to the Natalie’s words. Different things.

“By the way, are there any feminists out there who are annoyed at the D.C.’s for the way they’ve let themselves be represented in the photo? As delicate half-dressed damsels retreating into the traditional fortress of feminine fragility? Look at their postures in the picture: “How dare you uncouth rednecks photoshop nasty words on our bodies, while we’re busy loungeing in our towels?â€? Granted it’s only showbiz and sex sells, but still. If they have any serious points to make, this sets them back a piece, I’d say.”

It’s a bit icky. It was a female photographer. I suppose it’s the old they’ve been branded like cattle thing. Yes, the Chicks are big on freedom of speech, but less so when it comes from their opponents. I suppose we all have to learn that freedom of speech is a two way thing.

Eek, as much I love The Police and Sting’s music, Sting and his missus are a bit blah.

And at no stage have I been aware of them not taking reponsibility for their comments. They are tough, and intelligent people. Natalie’s dad is Texan music royalty, tough as nails, twice as talented.

They’ve engaged in democracy at a very public level. They’ve no doubt had to put up with a bucketload of knuckle-dragging obscenity over the process, but they’re still standing, and are mighty successful to boot.

There’s a hell of a lot to like about them.

But as I said before, I’m hoping the music can find its soul again, cause at their best, they’re a very fine band.

The Dixie Chicks, while quite happy to have used “free speech” themselves, should not have been shocked or surprised when that use of free speech brought free (and quite frank) speech in response.

They misconstrued the meaning. Free speech is free speech. It is not “Dixie Chick approved” or “Dixie Chick sympathetic”, and there is certainly no requirement for it to be “respectful of Dixie Chicks”. It is plain old “free speech”.

They should have known that.

If I say, “The Great Pumpkin for President!”, then my ‘opponents’ means everyone who disagrees with me.

And if my sister Lucy then says, “Shut up, you idiot!” I can’t cry ‘censorship!’ unless she’s accompanied by federal troops and a court order. If ’shut up, you idiot!’ is just her opinion and her reply, then it’s not a free speech issue no matter how stupid Lucy sounds, it’s just a political argument between one citizen and another. And if I go around bawling about how she’s censoring me, then I’m falsely using the concept of ‘free speech’ to sort of ‘beat her with a stick,’ and my argument isn’t very serious.

The great Nat Hentoff used to put it very succinctly: The correct response to provocative speech is… more speech.

woah Nelly!

Their opponents? As recording artists, their opponents are pretty well a) record labels, and b) mass merchant retailers. These represent the two groups who will take maximum advantage of the artist - any artist in fact.

Whom are you suggesting the DCs are beatin’ with a stick? Who are these shadowy “opponents?”

Well, if that’s the truth (and I don’t doubt that it was; didn’t see this movie, but half-remember the original squall in ‘Entertainment Weekly’ if not in ‘Foreign Affairs Quarterly’) then we’re just back to a simple, “That’s showbiz, folks!” and no beeg deel. For the record, though, I don’t think for a second that Maines was under any actual obligation to consider what sort of persons she was talking to, foreign or not; she should have said whatever she wanted, she just shouldn’t have been surprised or annoyed that others would reply to her remarks. (My purpose there was only to explain, not prescribe.)

And that’s kind of the point, really. In a way, it is the Dixie Chicks themselves who have unwittingly misconstrued the idea of ‘free speech’ by using it as an ill-considered stick to beat their opponents with, in the half-baked idea that *they* could say whatever they wanted, but if anyone dared to respond, those persons would be villainous ogres who were unjustly silencing Our Heroines. Eh. You pays yer dime, you takes yer choice.

By the way, are there any feminists out there who are annoyed at the D.C.’s for the way they’ve let themselves be represented in the photo? As delicate half-dressed damsels retreating into the traditional fortress of feminine fragility? Look at their postures in the picture: “How dare you uncouth rednecks photoshop nasty words on our bodies, while we’re busy loungeing in our towels?” Granted it’s only showbiz and sex sells, but still. If they have any serious points to make, this sets them back a piece, I’d say.

Katz: “decisions based on emotionalism, even in a robust democracy, tend to be dangerous and counter-productive.”

You got that one right, and Jemmy Madison had it straight even before you. I recall on another recent thread you were parsing the reasons why the US is a constitutional democratic republic, and not an actual literal democracy. The two of you should have a drink together some time. Me, I’m back to my moonlighting gig as a [SINISTER PIPE-ORGAN STING] …Presidential Elector!

(DIABOLICAL “THE SHADOW KNOWS”-STYLE LAUGHTER…)

I think most of the outrage was manufactured. At least, the film suggests it was a beat-up.

Darlene, is this right? Are you basing your insight into the USA upon what they saw in a movie?

While I adore the Dixiechicks, equally when they make statements like this

We do not want this war, this violence, and we’re ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas.

they should expect no free-passes from the people of Texas. They are pop-singers for chrissakes; not philosopher-kings. It is like when we are blessed with a homily by Madonna, Sting, or Trudy Stiler. We are more than entitled to respond, “shut up twit, and sing.”

The original comment was “off the cuff”. Maines hadn’t thought through her position at all. If no one had called her on it, she’d still be singing C&W ditties acceptable to Southern white folk.

But the reaction came from the Bush supporters. Foxtel started it, but the mass of the DC market fell in behind it. They were sincerely angry and outraged by Maines’ first comment. and they were further provoked by her refusal to back down.

Maines’ journey of political discovery, as portrayed in the movie, was a short one. She hardly added to her stock of knowledge about the circumstances of the Iraq war. Her response to it continued to be emotional, though admittedly more focussed.

Maines never challenged her detractors to explain their support for the Iraq misadventure. “My country, right or wrong” was as sophisticated as that exchange ever got.

So the movie was about a contest of competing emotionalisms.

Only as the Iraq fiasco unravelled did some detractors return to the fold and could Maines say “see I told you so.”

Democracy enables many different discourses to co-exist and to compete non-violently. This is a good thing.

But decisions based on emotionalism, even in a robust democracy, tend to be dangerous and counter-productive.

However, the movie tended only to privilege one manifestation of emotionalism over another.

The movie never explained why Maines’ gut feeling about Iraq was superior to that of her detractors, and as such the movie was an unconscious insight into the perils of popular politics in the US today.

Fair point, but I think most of the outrage was manufactured. At least, the film suggests it was a beat-up. The shock commentators (e.g. those chatty chaps on Fox) had a whale of time with it.

It was an off-the-cuff comment at a rock concert, so I assume the Chicks weren’t thinking about such issues as the fact that they were talking to non-Texans.

That being said, I found the text of the apology statement quite proper: acknowledging the nature of the gaffe without backing away from the substance of their position, which was, after all, quite defensible in substance if not in style. Still, it being showbiz and all, it’s not surprising that people held them to the first statement, and not the qualification. And if she said she meant it as a ‘joke,’ well, I’m sure that didn’t help matters much.

I found it odd that Darlene and others would be puzzled that people would take these matters seriously in time of war. Darlene wrote, “it was difficult to understand why members of the most powerful and arguably most democratic nation on earth became so agitated by the… statement”

But it’s precisely because it’s a democratic nation that people became agitated. It’s because words matter. Statements and positions and intentions matter. If they didn’t or don’t, then democracy is just theatre, and we may as well be governed by a shogunate (bakufu, a very illustrative word). It’s the very respect for free speech as something substantial and which makes a difference, which led people to become as angry as they did. I’m surprised this is even a question, in a country as democratic as, well, Australia.

As I said, I didn’t find the issue of airplay particularly compelling. Most of the singers I listen to don’t get any.

On Gretchen Wilson’s last CD, Merle and the populist princess of song do a great song about being politically incorrect. It’s probably satire, but….

You could write a country song about Ross.

“I saw the film and recommend it as documenting a complex response by the band to its predicament. Their initial uncertainty about where they found themselves, their open concern for record and concert sales, but ultimately their resolve to stick to their principles were, for me, convincing. The play of personalities within the band was also honest and clearly unrehearsed.”

I agree with this very much. Good point.

As for only writing about Australian issues, well, an issue is an issue. I hope I’m not parochial.

Er, unsurprising as it sounds like a totally unquantifiable claim. Care to lay a little evidence down for that one SL?

I’m a long-time fan, and have especially enjoyed the way that the MSM notion that the DCs income has been hurt by this experience. As a wise person suggested upthread, a few moment googlin’ will reveal their empire is undiminished. In fact, it’s in darned good order.

My concern is a little more for their music than their politickin’.

The first step in stopping hegemony is creating and writing about local things.