Dixie Chics who?

[SamSpade]

I'm not telling you to buy thier stuff. Don't, it's your choice. I'm saying the whole idea of "they're celebrities, so they can't speak thier mind to the public" is crap. They have a right to speak thier mind and you have a right not to buy thier stuff. That's the kind of thing that gives celebrities the idea that thier so much better than us that they can go on peace marches before a war.

I'm slightly split on that aspect. I don't have a podium or a pulpit to stand on, so if I think the President ordered the planes to fly into the WTC, I can't say anything about it, but Charlie Sheen can. Of course, he's *always* been an idiot, which doesn't help his side, but to me it's like someone having the chance to tell the whole world the Holocaust didn't happen. If you said it in a newspaper - you'd be out of business, because you can't print stuff like that without a little bit of evidence (unless you're a private racist tabloid with a small circulation). You couldn't say that if you were in public office or sitting on a court bench.

If you're just about anyone BUT a celebrity, just about the only way you get a bully pulpit is by earning it. You can still be full of BS, but at least you get to the microphone by your own honest effort.

On the other hand, I'm all for freedom of speech. I forget how Jefferson said it, but he once said something to the effect of that generally people are smart enough to tell sh!t from shinola and let them all speak and people can choose for themselves - in a nutshell (ok, so he didn't use those words). But basically, idiotic opinions need to be out there too, so that people can ignore them - but don't shut them out, it gives them *more* strength, and not the paltry amount they'd gain if it was just on its own merit.

On the OTHER hand - how many hands do I get? - celebrity carries with it SOME weight. Otherwise, we wouldn't have them endorsing things out there. We wouldn't have Hollywood actresses out who don't star in movies any more with a political blog on the Web. We wouldn't have athletes endorsing shoes and clothing and food and energy supplements and soft drinks. We wouldn't have actors commenting in public service announcements.

There is a small enough fraction of the public that tends to believe Oprah more than the President, no matter who is in that office. They will listen to a guy who PLAYS the President on TV more than someone who's actually BEEN President. It always scares me that these morons have the ability to cancel my vote.

Since they do hold some of that ability, it behooves them to act responsibly. If they're getting up on a pulpit, their reaction ought to fall into two categories:

1) As a legitimate "voice" of an issue - they carry the responsibility to be able to back up what they say with rational argument and legitimate evidence. They don't go around with half-baked BS about missiles flying into the Pentagon. As such, they get scrutinized and challenged - and debunked - like any other voice on the air. If they make outrageous claims or statements like having a Congressman taken out and stoned with his whole family - they should face the same consequences as if they were a TV anchor saying the same thing.

Or

2) They're private citizens just voicing their views, however stupid they might be. They should therefore expect that their popularity as a public figure will take a hit. They shouldn't bemoan the fact that people no longer want to see their movies or listen to their music because they aired their political or social views. Private citizens deal with this sort of thing in real life as well. They just DEPEND on public support more than the guy who works in an office.

Overall, they'd make better money if they just smiled and ignored questions about their politics - but if they do talk about it, all bets are off.

 

[Bruzilla]

For me to be in country music to begin with was not who I was. I liked Martie and Emily's playing, but I did not grow up liking country music. And I guess I was ignorant to the fact that the stereotypes behind country music were true — and it was disappointing. And so at this stage, I can never... I would be cheating myself and not setting a good example for my children to go back to something that I don't wholeheartedly believe in. So I'm pretty much done. They've shown their true colors. I like lots of country music, but as far as the industry and everything that happened... I couldn't want to be farther away from that. And it's easier when you're financially set, because you can be a little more ballsy, and just do what you want to do. I don't want people to think that me not wanting to be a part of country music is any sort of revenge. It is not. It is totally me being who I am, and not wanting to compromise myself and hate my life. All of my anger... I've pretty much gotten past that. Writing the album was therapy

I think the first post says it all. She was saying how she hated country music, and how stereotypes of country singers are correct. She also talks about how having money can make you ballsy enough to where you won't compromise yourself. Now she's back with the band and about to release another country album. I guess she didn't have as much ballsy money as she thought. So she's gotta hype up a new album and she's going after Bush to do it.

You also got to love Martie Maguire's comments about how Maine's comments were a blessing in disguise. "I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do." Yeah... every act wants a small number of fans over a whole bunch of fans!

 

[SamSpade]

You also got to love Martie Maguire's comments about how Maine's comments were a blessing in disguise. "I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do." Yeah... every act wants a small number of fans over a whole bunch of fans!

She might mean that, though. Some performers have survived long past their on air popularity because either by sheer luck or careful cultivation, they have a following of completely devoted fans. I'm amazed at how dedicated fans are to people like Tori Amos or Sarah McLachlan, even though they've never been huge top 40 star status. The Dead really never DID have a major hit - except maybe "Touch of Grey" - but they practically define dedicated fandom. Loyal fans means, you'll work for life.

Of course, HUGE fans means, you'll make a killing, make a butt load of money, and then never have to work again. I somehow imagine the Chicks are already past that point.

 

[Larry Gude]

This thread brings out the age old disussion of...

...'artist' vs. 'entertainers'

They don't mean the same thing nor are they mutually exclusive; some people are artists and their art is entertaining. Some people are entertainers who are artistic in what they do. Some people are not very entertaining artists and some people are not artistic yet very entertaining.

Madonna is an entertainer who does some pretty artistic stuff. Streisand is an entertaining artist.

The Chicks were entertainers, as are all country music people. This is not an insult. ALL county music is about entertaining first and foremost because country music fans are not interested in being provoked nor are interested in finding the deeper meaning in some odd time signature or adventurous arraignment. It is what it is and the performers find some very artistic and creative ways to do the same thing over and over again. Pop music is pretty much the same.

A titanic amount of horrible music comes from entertainers trying to be artistic. They get bored with that they do and have the money and time to 'explore' and 'evolve'. Frank Sinatra was an artist who was fine with being the entertainer he was and simply stayed with what he did. Cobain was an artist who was not fine with what he did and what it became.

Quote the Chicks;

"I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it,

That statement is normally associated with artists. In this case being an 'artist' is an invention made out of necessity. May as well talk cool once you've decided being an entertainer is interfering with your political goals and your audience has voted with their feet in search of an entertainer.

The Chicks are currently in search of an audience that still finds them entertaining and they are modifying what they do to fit with those who like what they have to say.

Not very artistic.

 

[Tonio]

...'artist' vs. 'entertainers'

Good post, Larry.

I don't think having a deep meaning necessarily makes a work "art," nor does the lack of meaning automatically relegate something to just "entertainment."

Movie critic Pauline Kael made this distinction: an "artist" is a creator who feels that only his or her best work is suitable for an audience. According to her, when a creator begins thinking in terms of pleasing an audience, the creator becomes a businessman instead of an artist.

Using that distinction, "artists" invest a lot of their own emotions into their work, where audiences can respond to it or discover their own emotional meanings. The "artist" recognizes that each person in the audience will respond differently. "Businessmen" manipulate audiences' emotions through cheap pyrotechnics, such as tacking on happy endings to movies that don't require them. "Artists "want audiences to feel, while "businessmen" simply want audiences to feel good.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with being an entertainer or producing entertainment, particularly in music. Not every singer can evoke the emotional depth of someone like Billie Holliday. I think too many entertainers have an inferiority complex about not being "artists". They worry that people don't take them seriously. So they inject false depth into their work. As Larry said, if the enterrtainer is a musician, the results can be horribly unlistenable.

 

[Larry Gude]

Yeah...

don't think having a deep meaning necessarily makes a work "art," nor does the lack of meaning automatically relegate something to just "entertainment."

Just 'acus' you dug you a deep well don't mean it got no water in it and sometimes, all you gotta do is stick yer shovel in the ground and you got you all the water in the world.

an "artist" is a creator who feels that only his or her best work is suitable for an audience.

I'd quibble with that, but, it would just be quibbling.

According to her, when a creator begins thinking in terms of pleasing an audience, the creator becomes a businessman instead of an artist.

THAT I won't quibble with because it's dead on.

"Businessmen" manipulate audiences' emotions through cheap pyrotechnics,

That's not true. Entertainers often use incredibly expensive pyrotechnics. I get the point but there is no need to bust the chops of entertainers. A good entertainer enjoys entertaining people; it's for them. An Artist is interested in themselves and if someone else likes it, great. If not, doesn't matter because that wasn't the idea in the first place. Now, when you get both, an entertaining artist...

Artists "want audiences to feel, while "businessmen" simply want audiences to feel good.

I think artists want thinking and feeling and hearing, same as the businessman but, again, the artist is doing their thing, the entertainer is doing what he hopes is or will become the audiences thing.

Having said that, I see nothing wrong with being an entertainer or producing entertainment, particularly in music.

There is nothing wrong with it. It's just two different things, entertaining and creating. Sometimes they come together. Sometimes not.

As Larry said, if the entertainer is a musician, the results can be horribly unlistenable

That's not what I said; There are tons of entertainers who are SUPURB musicians. The problem occurs when an entertainer who is NOT a musician, an artist, starts thinking he or she is.

 

[Larry Gude]

Let's play a game!

Artist or entertainer or both?


Steve Miller = Both

Creed = Entertainers

 

[vraiblonde]

Whether we like it or not, celebrities have an enormous influence over their fans and, therefore, our culture. No matter how stupid they are, there will be at least a thousand people who will blindly each and every one of them. They have a captive audience of mindless sycophants who hang on their every word. Why do you think the media covers these people and their assinine political "viewpoints"?

So the Dixie Chicks can blow it out their ass. I'll clean my toilet with their Time and Rolling Stones covers, then send it to them in a "fan" letter.

 

[Tonio]

That's not true. Entertainers often use incredibly expensive pyrotechnics. I get the point but there is no need to bust the chops of entertainers. A good entertainer enjoys entertaining people; it's for them. An Artist is interested in themselves and if someone else likes it, great. If not, doesn't matter because that wasn't the idea in the first place. Now, when you get both, an entertaining artist...

I think artists want thinking and feeling and hearing, same as the businessman but, again, the artist is doing their thing, the entertainer is doing what he hopes is or will become the audiences thing.

I think you and I aren't far off on this issue.

One example of "pyrotechnics" might be the sappy tragedies in "Love Story" and "Terms of Endearment." Or how about "Forrest Gump"? The movie was too much like "Rain Man" for me, where the audience was supposed to find inspiration in the disabled protagonist. I was surprised to find that the "Gump" novel was a dark comedy.

 

[Tonio]

Whether we like it or not, celebrities have an enormous influence over their fans and, therefore, our culture. No matter how stupid they are, there will be at least a thousand people who will blindly each and every one of them. They have a captive audience of mindless sycophants who hang on their every word. Why do you think the media covers these people and their assinine political "viewpoints"?

I suspect that the mindless sycophants are outnumbered by the cynics who see celebrities as objects of deserving riducule, such as Tom Cruise hopping on Oprah's couch. At least, I certainly hope that's the case.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Artist -writes and performs thier own music.
Entertainer -performs someone elses music.

Just my viewpoint

 

[Bruzilla]

Quote the Chicks

That statement is normally associated with artists. In this case being an 'artist' is an invention made out of necessity. May as well talk cool once you've decided being an entertainer is interfering with your political goals and your audience has voted with their feet in search of an entertainer.

That could be, but that's also the response of any organization that's failed to attract much support, or lost most of its support, and is trying to put a positive spin on their predicament.