Rad Chicks?
Last week when I was at the dentist I was drawn to the Time magazine cover of the Dixie Chicks that was accompanied by the title "Radical Chicks." I was a bit surprised by the title. After all, are they really that "radical"? Is declaring dislike for the President and his current policies that extreme (politically or otherwise)? I suppose it is in the world of country music, which helps explain the backlash against the Chicks.
I've been torn by the whole Chicks controversy. On the one hand, I agree with them politically and I agree with their right to free speech. On the other hand, I also think that people can and should commercially boycott those products that offend them. I used to do this a lot more as a college student than I do now; but I think money is an important political tool for all people, not just the elite and the corrupt. So if country music listeners want to abstain from buying Chicks' products as a political statement, then let them exercise that right. However, when radio stations refuse to play their music they are exercising a form of censorship that not only inhibits free speech (or free listening, in this case), but also free markets. It's patronizing not to let consumers of country music decide for themselves if they want to listen to the Chicks or not. Additionally, the article had an interesting take on the culture of intolerance that is part of the country music scene and that is quite different from other music genres.
Although I'm not a big fan of country music, I have been known to like a few Chicks songs over the years, and I'm going to go buy my first Chicks CD to support the "radicals."
I've been torn by the whole Chicks controversy. On the one hand, I agree with them politically and I agree with their right to free speech. On the other hand, I also think that people can and should commercially boycott those products that offend them. I used to do this a lot more as a college student than I do now; but I think money is an important political tool for all people, not just the elite and the corrupt. So if country music listeners want to abstain from buying Chicks' products as a political statement, then let them exercise that right. However, when radio stations refuse to play their music they are exercising a form of censorship that not only inhibits free speech (or free listening, in this case), but also free markets. It's patronizing not to let consumers of country music decide for themselves if they want to listen to the Chicks or not. Additionally, the article had an interesting take on the culture of intolerance that is part of the country music scene and that is quite different from other music genres.
Although I'm not a big fan of country music, I have been known to like a few Chicks songs over the years, and I'm going to go buy my first Chicks CD to support the "radicals."
posted by Janet | 6:08 PM
2 Comments:
Hey Woman - I have my own rant on the "Dixie Chicks Contoversy". They have been talking about the "backlash" because their concert tickets sales have been lacking. But the new album was #1 on the pop and country billboard charts. Backlash? No. The ticket prices range from $75 - $150 and in our recessed ecomony with gas prices at $3.17 a gallon and cost of living rising and no end in site to our "freedom war" I think the American people a a bit straped for cash and a $75 ticket to support the girls is beyond budget. So I think the backlash contoversy is over. Move on. And speak LOUD. Backlash or not.
I agree with you -- $75 is way too much. I heard on the radio that some of their ticket sales weren't going well and they canceled some of the shows. This is what I mean about letting the market work -- let people make their own decisions about how to spend their money.
Post a Comment
<< Home