1 Aw, c'mahn, Greg! Those poor Chicks -- they are victims of right-wing censorship! We should mandate that all those who bought their pre-anti Bush comment CDs buy their newest CDs, too. This will "eradicate" said censorship!

2 There is more to the story than meets the eye.

The below link is an Article published by Radio & Records. It highlights the lengths of deception the chicks have gone to to try and convince people that their rights were somehow violated and that people conspired against them. In all actuality, it is the chicks who conspired against the American people.

http://pdf.rronline.com/Cou/COU-20060619-3150.pdf?


If you read the article, you will see the chicks had major support from a major country station. They wanted to be seen as "rock", so they lied and lied and lied about being "not being played".

3 The fact is that most radio stations have censored the Dixie Chicks, including my local country station.

I requested Not Ready to Make Nice on my local station and it was never played. Not because of negative comments, I was the first one to comment about it, but because they wanted to continue to ban them, just like they did when Natalie first made her comment.

I was in contact with another country station (outside of my listening area) who pulled the Chicks single because of 30 (thirty) negative comments. He used those reactions to determine what the audience wanted and didn't want to hear.

Know how many listeners he catered to?

Nearly half a million.

Thirty people dictated the audience reaction of 500,000 listeners. Is that fair, or censorship?

30 people certainly isn't a sizable share of that market, yet it was enough to have the Chicks banned from the radio.

Why, because of their "abhorrent political views" (a quote in an interview with him about the Chicks).

His audience had nothing to do with whether or not the Chicks were played, it was his political views that determined that.

There is much more to this than the country audience. Radio corporations banned them because those corporations have close ties to the Bush administration. Local DJ's used their own political views to determine what the audience listened to. An organized effort by a ultra-conservative website to request the Chicks be silenced from the airwaves.

Or the simple fact that the country industry was upset that the Chicks were "Not Ready to Make Nice".

I was one of those who turned the station because the Chicks were NOT played, as I have done with most country radio stations. They lost me as a very loyal listener to their station, and I may never support them again.

And I owned all of their old CD's and bought the new CD, but the only mandate I was under was my love of the music and the band. I tried to eradicate the censorship with my purchases and concert tickets, but the continued bans on their music, tour and movie promotions have hurt them, financially and emotionally.

And Beansox, for someone who clearly doesn't like this band, why do you worry about them so much? I see your negative posts everywhere......

You really seem to have quite a fascination for this band.....

The Chicks wanted nothing to do with the country industry after the horrible way it treated the them. They didn't lie about anything.

4 so you think that 30 people isnt enough to not play them, but your 1 request is enough to keep playing them?

get a fricken grip!

"I see your negative posts everywhere......"
why thank you! *takes a bow*


"They didn't lie about anything."
Obviosuly you didnt read the article I posted, or you too are liar.

5 "I was in contact with another country station (outside of my listening area)"

Why on earth would you want to have a say in what listeners of a station you cant hear have to listen to?

6 "but the continued bans on their music, tour and movie promotions have hurt them, financially and emotionally"

no ban was ever placed on thier music, tour, or movie. last time i checked, the were still making music, still touring, and still promoting their movie.


Why do chicks and their fans lie so much?

7 Both of our local stations pulled the group in response to listener complaints in 2003 -- and have made actually held call-ins to see about bringing them back. In every case, the response from the listeners has been negative. Tell me -- is that corporate censorship or is it listener preference, fan?

Similarly, was it corporate censorship or audience choice that forced the cancellation of the Houston concert by th Chicks after poor ticket sales.

I, for one, was ready and willing to welcome them back to the air -- until they insulted country fans in their interviews at the time the new CD was released.

But then again, I guess that the fan who posted thinks it is great that the Chicks "aren't ready to make nice" but demands that everyone else do so despite their own right to express political and social sentiments.

8
I agree! Country music fans are mostly an intolerant conservative lot, no surprise there. Fact is the Dixie Chicks newest album is probably their best music yet and is recognized as one of the top albums of 2006, pick up a copy, listen, and enrich your life. If not - your loss.

9 And of course, "TEX" (or should i say "Natalie"), such rhetoric is certainly going to propel country fans back into the arms of your band.

And you know what -- I'm sure some of the neo-Nazi skinhead metal bands are making some great music, but I'm not going to subsidize them or their message, either. I suppose that makes me an intolerant conservative in your book -- I believe it makes me a wise consumer who spends his dollars in conformity with his personal values.

10 Notice Tex's email addy

info@dixiechicks.com

11 Hence my suggestion that we are dealing with a poster whose name is really Natalie.

12 No rhetoric, just the plain truth. We don’t care anymore if country radio plays us or not. We don’t care anymore if you or country fans don’t like us. I believe we have made that point quite clear this past year. We decided early 2005 to go a different musical direction. Our 2006 album "Taking the Long Way" and "Accidents & Accusations" tour were both successful. Bluntly - we are unapologetic to your disappointment.

13 I guess I did peg this one -- I do have Natalie here!

But I love the twisted logic here -- Natalie and her fans complain the band is being "censored" by country radio, but by her own admission they are not shooting for a country audience anymore!

So let me get this straight -- you aren't country, but it is wrong for country stations not to play your music and for country fans not to buy your records. That is rich!

Well, Natalie, let me clue you in -- i was one of the folks who called stations trying to get them to play you in 2003 after your juvenile political statements. I was one of the folks who argued you had a right to your opinion. The only reason I didn't buy tickets for your show that summer was my liberal Democrat wife's request that I not spend that much money on concert tickets, since we hoped you would make a return engagement to RodeoHouston in 2004 (we were at the 2002 show).

And even though I have trashed your political views since then, I anticipated the release of your new album -- right up until you attacked country fans and country music (when you made it clear you don't believe in free speech for anyone except yourself and your supporters). It is why folks stayed away from your concerts in droves, forcing all those cancellations and postponements -- something that hardly makes it possible to claim your tour was a success or that you had "given up" on the country market since your biggest failures were in cities closely tied to country music.

But hey, i wish you well -- if you can find an audience for your message, go for it. Just recognize that those of us who won't be part of that audience are not small-minded or intolerant -- we have simply decided to go a different direction, one that is in keeping with our beliefs and values, and one that you certainly ought to respect just as much as you demand we respect your decision to do the same.

14 Hey Gnat, how come you went on STAR 98.7 and lied to the station and listeners about not getting played on an station ins Los Angeles when KZLA (country) had you in heavy in rotation and even had their staff go on CNN to defend you?

How come you lied to everyone about not canceling any concerts, even thought you knew at the time you were canceling 14?

How come you have yet to witdraw your names from the country categories at the Grammy's?


How come you requested RIAA certify your album for 2X platinum even though you are 250K short of that benchmark?


How come you have no integrity?

15 Beansox the DC are less than 140K away from selling 2 million. This is a typical process. Toby Keith's latest was certified platinum by the time it sold 600K. The Killers were recently certified and they are at 700K.

16 very well bill. when are they going to remove their names from the country categories?

17 Another thing bill, TOTW was aruond the 850K mark in sales, they declined to have that certified as platinum, so why is it so important for TTLW to be certified for 2? Just more spin on their part to paint the album a success when it it really isnt.

18 Good question Beanstock about the live cd. The cd has actually sold about 960K. I can't tell you why it isn't platinum - maybe a million copies haven't been shipped?

As for them being removed from country - they can claim they aren't country but they are and the new cd, while it has rock elements, is still very country - more so than most country groups today.

Any way you slice, they are a great band - country or rock

19 I guess removing their names from the country genre they campaign would require integrity, and that is something they just dont have!

20 I guess removing their names from the country genre they campaign against would require integrity, and that is something they just dont have!

21 At first Boston country station WKLB (which has done well lately in the 12 + over ratings) said they wouldn't take the Chicks off the air but more recently their PD has said that most of WKLB's listeners have a strong negative opinion of the Chicks, and thus the station doesn't air too many of their songs anymore. When the Chicks turned away from country (for some reason, they're still in the country CD section at Borders) and called their fans a bunch of ig'nant rednecks, that may have been why
public opinion turned.

And in my opinion, the "Not Ready to Make Nice"
song was a whiny bunch of crap that deserved to
bomb. The parody of it on MAD TV (see it on YouTube), "I Will Never Apologize", was much
better.

22 NRTMN was a fantastic song and brilliantly written. Had the song been written without the context of the incident in your mind, you probably would have enjoyed the song.

And let's refresh memories, it was the country audience that turned on the Chicks well before the Chicks gave you guys the finger.

23 Sorry, Bill, it really is pretty whiny -- and would be even outside of the specific context. Indeed, it would be nothing more than a "B-side" track were it not for the controversy.

And yes, the country audience did "turn on" the band -- because a large segment of that audience rejected their political message, their choice of forum for expressing it, and their subsequent arrogance in presuming that they had a right to be free from criticism or commercial consequences. Indeed, it was the latter factor -- and their decision to try to paint themselves as victims -- that permanently alienated many of us.

And remember -- the band has not been in any way censored. No government official has forbidden them to perform in concert, not law prevents them from recording or marketing their music, and no decree forbids their music from being played on the public airwaves. What happened was that they alienated their fan-base, and they have had to live with teh consequences of their decision to do so.

24 Is anyone suprised my questions have yet to be answered? Im not, as it requires honesty and courage.

25 Rhymes, while I support your right to your opinion, I respectfully disagree, most notably with your assertion that the Chicks haven't been censored in any way. Yes, the are still free to speak out, haven't been jailed, etc.. they have been railed against by corporate entities, the free republic, etc.. they have been threatened, stations have been threatened with either pull them or we'll withdraw advertising, etc.. So, in a sense they have certainly had their free speech toyed with. If you can't speak out against governement for fear of being blacklisted or threatend,then it's not really free speech.

In the end, it doesn't much matter. They have alienated a large portion of their fan base and the Chicks simply have a smaller audience. And as long as the continue to produce stellar records such as Taking the Long Way, they will maintain the audience. I'm sorry you are no longer a fan because you are really missing out on, what in my opinion, is their best record yet.

26 If the chicks are against boycotting, then why back in Ocotber of of 2004, right before the election, did they post a meesage on their website asking anyone whould listen to use the same tactics to get Stolen Honor taken off the air?

"http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/10/19/123011.shtml"

"The Chicks punctuate their alert by saying, "during the past week there has been a massive backlash, and Sinclair is on the defensive. They are on the ropes and we need you to help us keep them there."


They even provided a link to encourage people to join the boycott...

http://freepress.net/music/

The result?

"Dear Media Reformer,

Thanks to you, Sinclair bowed to massive public pressure. After a deluge of phone calls, emails, boycotts and threatened lawsuits....(excerpt)
Sincerely,
Robert McChesney
Free Press "



Seems to me they dont have ANY problem using the tacits they continue to whine about, against others.

27 Here is the link bill, I wouldnt want you just to take my word for it.

http://www.freepress.net/action/archive.php?id=10

28 Beansox, you got me there. Although, you and I have had this discussion in the past and you know that I disagreed with the Chicks on those tactics. Just because I'm a Chicks fan doesn't mean I support everything they do. I believe they were wrong for inciting that type of boycott just as I believe you and other were wrong for your organized boycott.

It was more disappointing coming from the Chicks because they just went through a similiar situation and didn't like it - very hypocritical. I will certainly give you that.

29 But when you financially support them (if i remember correctly, you said you bought more than one copy of TTLW *ducks for cover*)going to concerts, paying to see their fauxcumentary, you are indeed supporting everything they do.

30 But bill, I can't help but notice that your statement effectively concedes my point -- that the only folks you and the girls in the band believe they are the only folks who have a right to freedom of speech.

You claim the have been "railed against" by certain entities and individuals. Where I grew up, that is freedom of speech.

People have threatened boycotts if their music is played -- again, an act of speech and freedom of association long recognized as a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights.

And yes, words do have consequences in a free society -- just look at the response to the recent racist rant by Seinfeld's Michael Richards. The man likely no longer has a career left, and has been banned by certain comedy clubs for what he said on stage. Have his rights been toyed with? Is his right to freedom of speech somehow diminished? Or are we simply seeing the reality that speech invites more speech, and that controversial speech may provoke a strong reaction?

I guess what I am saying is that I'll have some sympathy for the plight of the Dixie Chicks when they find themselves taken into custody by the FBI -- not when they complain that the working class folks of America are not willing to shell-out $15 for a CD or $50 for concert tickets to feed the lifestyle and bank accounts of a threesome of wealthy, over-privileged entertainers.

31 Beansox,

I did buy more than one copy (two copies to be exact - you know the story behind it), saw them in concert but sadly haven't seen the documentary.

I will continue to support them as long as the music continues to be topnotch.

32 LOL.. i know why you bought the copies...that why i threw in there!


You think the music will still be top notch when they have to cut back on promotional costs because they lost 70+% of their fans base and can no longer afford to outsourse the creative process to topnotch artists?

33 Rhymes I have nothing against freespeech for you or any one else. I'm a huge proponent of freespeech, I think Beansox can attest to that. What I am against is organized boycotts and threats of derailing careers unless you speak or think like everyone else. Additionally, had the DC said the same thing about Clinton they would be hailed as heroes. Very hypocritical.

If you, as an individual, don't want to support the Chicks, fine, don't. The Chicks have said the same thing. If you know longer like them for their views, so be it. But having an oranized boycott that threatens radio stations with pulling of advertisers, etc.., it's a bit far. What it does is sparks fear in others to keep silenced. That works nicely in China or Korea but this is still America.

As a side note, I'm a Republican and I disagreed with Ms. Maine's statement.

34 I have to wonder, Bill -- would you say the same thing about the concerted action taken in the 1960s to end segregation and guarantee civil rights? You know, "Hey, you are welcome to oppose segregation, but organized boycotts against segregated stores, lunch counters and bus lines is a bit much!"

35 Please, don't you find the issue of segregation much different than one woman saying she doesn't care of the president? Obviously fighting for every man/woman/child to be equal is different that one off the cuff comment. It is no comparison and can't be treated as such.

Natalie's comment was so minute that it shouldn't have had the impact it did. It still amazes me that a little ol' country singer from Texas had this much power to scare people into rallying against her.

Again, for her comment, you, as a fan/non fan, have every right to say "hey, I don't like her views and I'm not going to support her" but the tactics and threats and everything that went with it was over the top.

36 bill... there is nothing little about her. stop with the nonsense! DOH!

And people didnt jsut rally against her for what she said, it goes much deeper than that. People were ready to move on... the chicks? not so much, as you can clearly see from their marketing campaign for this latest album. They wanted to beat people over the head with their politics and then declare they were somehow beyond reproach because they are "financially set" (natalies words not mine) "celebritites".

What they found out is that most people just find them completely unlikeable and that trait overshadows their music. So as long the chicks continue to campaign against conservatives, and I refer you back to TEX's post, by calling them names, they can expect to met with resistance and all that it entails.

37 The funniest part of this is that many of the top 10 superstar country artists (concert revenue, album sales, you name it) are left-leaning politically.

Tim McGraw? Democrat. Actually quite outspoken. Featured in Esquire. Lauded as potential governor by Bill Clinton. Country superstar.

Faith Hill? Outspoken "loony lefty" (that is to say, she criticized President Bush).

Johnny Cash? "Left of center," and that's being as conservative as possible.

Kenny Chesney? Democrat, from what I can glean from your brethren over at Free Republic.

Keith Urban? Pretty clearly left of center.

Not just stars, but elite superstars, all.

Using hindsight, it seems the real culprit here was the mood of the country when the Chicks spoke up. McGraw could probably bash the President daily now with no effect at all!

Either way, the Chicks themselves had the #3 selling country album of 2006. So...yeah. Let the country stations do whatever their little hearts desire.

Me? I think that if you don't listen to nonpolitical music because of the artists' politics are to be laughed at. This is coming from a liberal with Toby Keith on his iPod.

38 that should read: "you are to be laughed at."

39 And dan, for what it is worth, in the last three years I have spent my money to attend concerts by Chesney and Urban, and would consider attending one by Tim McGraw. I'd skip Faith Hill (whose shows I've attended in the past) because I don't like her musical direction the last four or five years. And i would kill to be able to see Johnny Cash one last time.

By the way, I own albums by all, and would consider purchasing more in the future, politics be damned.

The Dixie Chicks, though, fall into a special category -- their arrogant insistence that no one criticize them and attempt to paint themselves as victims is what offends me. And their whiny single grates on my nerves.

Also please note that while they are classed as "country", their airplay was on non-country stations and their sales were to a decidedly non-country audience. They themselves claim to have moved beyond the country market -- but they are somehow still classified as country. To say, therefore, that they "had the #3 selling country album of 2006" is somewhat disingenuous -- and the response to their concert tour in traditional country bastions bears that out.

When the Dixie Chicks decide that they are ready to make nice with the country music audience, apologize to country fans for their insulting comments about country fans and the country music industry, and get back to making good country music rather than political music, I'll consider buying another Dixie Chicks album or attending another Dixie Chicks concert.

Instead I'll be going to see many of these artists during a three week period in February and March during
RodeoHouston -- because I love their music and don't care about their politics.

By the way, the ones my wife and I are seeing are GEORGE STRAIT, REBA McENTIRE, CLAY WALKER, JOSH TURNER, GRETCHEN WILSON, ALAN JACKSON, PAT GREEN, SUGARLAND, RASCAL FLATTS, DIERKS BENTLEY, and BROOKS & DUNN -- at least a couple of whom the Dixie Chicks said they don't want to share CD players or iPods with their music. And please note -- we've left out the two artists most closely connected to conservative politics, because our goal is to be entertained.

40 It's a chicken-and-egg thing. The slams of the country fans came after the fans, as Maines has said, "turned on [us] in a day." As I said, I suspect it was a sort of perfect storm of political climate and bashing by the mainstream media that sunk them, and made the country fans react.

But I simply can't defend the fans for what they did to the Chicks after the intial tame comment -- which resulted in death threats! Now that it's an all-out war, with the Chicks firing at the fans, well, sure, you can be upset. But they didn't start the fire.

As for their sales being to a decidedly non-country audience: Do you have any numbers on that? I'd be interested. Probably hard to gauge. Surely their sales to pop audiences are higher--but so is the #1 act in all of music, Rascal Flatts. Yet they are still classified as country, and no one questions it.

Sounds like a good show in Houston. For the record, there are just a couple songs I can't listen to because I take them personally. The big one is Daryl Worley's "Have You Forgotten," because it unambiguously implies that liberals think we should "not worry about bin Laden," which is despicable and makes my blood boil when I hear it. If it were "don't worry about Hussein," that would be based in truth.

41 But here's the deal -- they made those comments on foreign soil as we prepared for an imminent war with high public support. Had Natalie Mains even acknowledged that there was a better time, place, and manner to express the same ideas, I think she would have killed off the ugly response in an instant. Indeed, I didn't find her comments all that outrageous -- but then again, I hear similar sentiments expressed by my wife on a daily basis.

And I'll agree that death threats are out of bounds -- but I understand that Toby Keith and Daryl Worley get similar comments without engaging in the sort of histrionics the Dixie Chicks have. Sadly, it goes with the territory if you are a celebrity entering the political fray -- which is a truly unfortunate comment on a small fringe of looney-toons in our society.

By the way -- if you find yourself here in Houston during rodeo season some year, let me know -- we'll take in a show -- and in the game of Bulls vs. Cowboys, this former Chicagoan transplanted to Texas always picks the Bulls!

42 Just to be clear, you've got two Dans commenting now. Must be your lucky day.

I tend to be amused by those who get themselves worked up by the politics of stars. The best living author is Mark Helprin, but his politics are moonbat rightwing nonsense. Doesn't make his novels any less compelling, though.

43 I noticed that -- and my invite goes out to both of you Dans, as well as the other commenters on the thread (well, except for the Dixie Chicks Fan -- too much of a moonbat).

hexck. if TEX/Natalie comes down, I'd even be willing to take in a show with her -- but hope she would spring for luxury box tickets for us.