May 25, 2006
Dixie Chicks as Crusaders? Hardly
Posted by Sean Moores at May 25, 2006 1:37 AMThe Dixie Chicks have (officially) been back for two days, and I already wish they'd go away.
Three years after Natalie Maines' comments about being "ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas" and the resulting fallout, the "defiant" Chicks are back with their new disc, "Taking the Long Way."
Quotation marks are necessary around the word "defiant," because it doesn't serve so much as a description as an image, which is everything to this Texas trio. They've backed into this position as the protectors of free speech, but they have historically been as careful crafting their image as Big & Rich – without the buffoonery.
In 1995, band founders Martie Maguire and Emily Robison sacked singer Laura Lynch in favor of Maines and a more youthful appearance. They've been doggedly pursuing pop-crossover stardom since. Faith Hill gets treated like a twangy Celine Dion by most defenders of country music's honor, but the Dixie Chicks get a free pass because they can play instruments. To those who think that their music kowtows any less to the VH-1 Top 20 Video Countdown, I give you one word: "Landslide." Their flaccid cover of the Fleetwood Mac song gives you a pretty clear picture of their career aspirations.
The band was no stranger to controversy, or taking stands, before Maines' comments at that 2003 London show. Their song "Goodbye Earl," a revenge tale aimed at an abusive husband, created a minor stir. They waged a righteous battle with Sony over royalties and won. But this latest flap, the one that led to boycotts, a beef with Toby Keith and banishment from country radio, was an accident. They fell into it, plain and simple. Ultimately it appears it was serendipitous because while they took their lumps, the Chicks turned it into a marketing coup.
Which brings us to Maines' comments and the resulting fallout, "the Incident," as it's called in a Time cover story this week. At the time of the furor, it wasn't long before Maines issued an apology to George W. Bush. It was textbook ass-covering, putting a positive spin on the situation before it affected sales. When that didn't work, and they were pulled from country stations' playlists and former fans' CD shelves, they responded with an appearance on the cover of Entertainment Weekly with slurs such as "Saddam's Angels" scrawled on their naked bodies. When they played the Patty Griffin-penned "Truth No. 2" on the tour, they showed a video montage of various civil rights crusades and acts of censorship.
The Chicks as civil-rights crusaders? There would be nothing wrong with that, if they gave a damn about free speech before it started to hit them in the pocketbook. Maines' initial apology smacked of damage control. If you were such a staunch defender of free speech, why wouldn't you have the courage of your convictions? If you're going to rip the president (and I fully support Maines' right to do so), don't back down when it looks like album sales are going into the tank. The Neil Youngs, Steve Earles and Pearl Jams of the world have been making music on their own terms for years, radio play and consequences be damned. Now, three years later, the publicity machine is still cranking full bore and the Chicks want you to believe that they're defenders of the faith.
With "Taking the Long Way" due out the next day, Maines publicly rescinded her 2003 apology in the Time piece. "I apologized for disrespecting the office of the president," she said. "But I don't feel that way anymore. I don't feel he is owed any respect whatsoever."
Way to take a tough stance, Nat. Re-dissing a president whose ratings are lower than the Geena Davis flop "Commander In Chief" is gutsy. Dr. King would be proud.
As for the new disc, everything about it seems to have been hatched in a corporate boardroom. I have to give them credit, though, because no stone was left unturned in the marketing plan. Every move was designed to relaunch the Chicks' career and move units in a marketplace.
Lining up Rick Rubin was an automatic. He brought Johnny Cash back from commercial irrelevance. Neil Diamond drew raves for his Rubin-produced "12 Songs" last year. He re-teamed with the Red Hot Chili Peppers this year, and their 2-disc "Stadium Arcadium" is earning raves as their best in years, if not ever. This is a no-lose move for the Chicks. They get the curiosity factor, and potentially bring fans of Rubin's other work to the marketplace. There's that pesky publicity again. If Rubin can make this band appealing to fans of past clients Cash, the Chili Peppers and Tom Petty, he's worth every penny he's getting paid.
Speaking of material, co-writers were a must, too. "Taking the Long Way" is loaded with them. They didn't bring in just any co-writers, though. Song-doctoring duties fell to the likes of Gary Louris (Jayhawks), Mike Campbell (Tom Petty), Sheryl Crow, Neil Finn, Dan Wilson (Semisonic) and bluesman Keb' Mo'. I wonder if these songs were played for test audiences.
Their videos must not be tested. If they were, the clip for the first single, "Not Ready to Make Nice," would have drawn laughs for its ham-fisted "Scarlet Letter"/"Our Town" imagery. The overwrought video fits the overwrought song and the band's inflated sense of importance to a T, so they might have released it anyway. Any group that would use concert video to liken its commercial travails to people being hosed and attacked by dogs in Alabama isn't lacking gall.
While we're talking about "Not Ready to Make Nice," can we just take a look at some of these other lyrics? "Lubbock or Leave It," a kiss-off to the intolerance of Maines' Texas hometown, at one point references another famous Lubbock musician, Buddy Holly:
"I hear they hate me now / Just like they hated you / Maybe when I'm dead and gone / I'll get a statue too."
Don't hold your breath. On second thought, go ahead. Even better, get over yourself.
And, of course, no re-entry to the marketplace would be complete without a makeover. The cover of "Taking the Long Way," which exudes an urban, "Sex in the City" vibe, says "We're so done with country." But the new, empowered Chicks wouldn't be content just to give you the picture. They're going to give you the thousand words, too. Listen up, mainstream country fans. You can't break up with the Dixie Chicks, because they're breaking up with you. "I'd rather have a smaller following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, rather than have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith. We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do," Maguire told Time.
Gee, Martie, I guess I just don't get it. Because right there, you sounded like a closed-minded bigot. And all this time I thought that was wrong. They must have left out the part of the quote where you offered to give those fans who have you "in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith" their money back because you didn't want their business.
Josh Tyrangiel, who wrote the Time piece, further perpetuates the myth of the Chicks as crusaders risking commercial suicide:
" 'Taking the Long Way''s existence is designed to thumb its nose at country's intolerance for ideological hell raising, and buying it or cursing it reveals something about you and your politics – or at least your ability to put a grudge above your listening pleasure. And however you vote, it's tough to deny that by gambling their careers, three Texas women have the biggest balls in American music," Tyrangiel writes.
I'm sure Mr. Tyrangiel is a fine reporter, as Time has a choice in who it hires. But is he for real with this fairy tale? Yeah, it takes big ones to put your career on the line after you've sold something like 30 million albums. I'm worried that their families might go hungry.
The Chicks' offspring will continue to be children of privilege, and "Taking the Long Way" will likely only add to that. Their so-called risk is calculated at worst. The group had such a pop-crossover audience to begin with that focusing their attention on those folks will likely bring big record sales still.
Ultimately, I don't care if it sells of doesn't sell. I'm not buying it either way.
If you want to buy it, go ahead. If you like it, more power to you.
I believe in freedom of choice.
I believe in free speech, for Natalie Maines and all citizens.
I believe you can be critical of your government and be patriotic, too.
What I don't believe is the Dixie Chicks' posturing. I don't believe it for a minute.
Yeah....but the clearly Gary Louris written "Everybody Knows" could easily been the lead off track on the next Jayhawks album if only they hadn't broken up. Maybe Gary will use his Dixie Cash to put the 'Hawks back together. And really if you are gonna get "hit" songwriters i don't know if I would lean on guys like Neil Finn and Dan Wilson, two of my favorites but not the most commercial names out there.
The album is a little slick for my taste but there are some good songs on it. As fr as posturong goes i'm unable to sling arrows at someone who got death threats for their opinion. Espicially when it seems like they tok the popular opinion long before it was popular.
But thats just me.
Posted by: Patrick Hayes at May 25, 2006 2:28 AMI'm standing up and clapping, Sean. I was with the Chicks right up to the way-too-contrived apology/de-apology switcheroos, and the self-comparison to civil rights activists made me run, not walk, away from the wronged-Chicks bandwagon.
I tried really hard to like "Not Ready to Make Nice" single, anyway, but the more I hear it, the even more I hate it, not least because it feels about as angry as a lukewarm bowl of oatmeal.
Posted by: stacy at May 25, 2006 4:39 AMThe Chixie who?
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at May 25, 2006 7:31 AMBravo Sean! I agree, I don't care what she wants to say about anyone, just have enough conviction to stand up for what you just said. They have been so wishy-washy through this whole thing I can barely listen anymore.
Posted by: Eric Banister at May 25, 2006 10:18 AMJust because someone gets death threats doesn't mean they're doing things for the right reasons. White supremacist David Duke got death threats, but I doubt anyone here is going to back up his opinion. The Chicks' cause might be more popular now, but maybe the Chicks need to really believe in it, and not the dollar.
Posted by: Sharon at May 25, 2006 10:47 AMI don't really like the Dixie Chicks. They wrong-footed me with their image from the start. And thank you for taking a stab at that horrible Landslide cover: the video nearly made me vomit (mind you I retch easily).
However, I'm not sure why you're so judgemental concerning their determination to spin a difficult situation. Sounds like they've made some mistakes in handling it (the apology etc) but don't we all stumble from time to time? I think if I'd landed myself in a similar situation, I might have backpedaled if people had sent me death threats and published my home address in the newspaper.
The day I take culinary advice from a pet food manufacturer will be the day I take political advice from an entertainer, whatever their ilk.
Always good to recall that 60% of Americans did not support their own Revolution.
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at May 25, 2006 12:17 PMI didn't say that the death threats made them right about anything nor did I say that it meant they were doing things for the right reasons. What I was trying to express is that I wouldn't accuse someone of posturing or faking an opinion when it results in death threats. Like I said thats just me though.
As always the music should be the point though, not the PR around it. This album is really bright in a few spots. I'd be suprised if most people who read this page disliked the song "Everybody Knows" if they listened without prejudice.
But i've been wrong before.
I'm not necessarily against spin, and lord knows I've made mistakes, and I make them still. What bugs me the most is their insistence on revisiting "the incident" as a marketing tool. I'd feel a lot better about the whole thing if they'd just say, "that's in the past" and move on. If the disc is good, there will be an audience. Though Jim could probably tell you about a bunch of unsung artists out there who deserve an audience and aren't finding it. I know they're out there.
Posted by: Sean at May 25, 2006 3:01 PMI think that the initial comment came more from living in a philosophical vacuum than anything else. Man, which of us has NOT stuck our foot in it? But the steely-eyed martyr for freedom thing comes off a bit trite. I've gotten death threats from perfect strangers in traffic - that didn't signify anything other than that there are some real idiots in the world.
I know that I'd defend to the death Natalie's right to free speech, and for awhile I traipsed around in a uniform doing just that. I suspect she wouldn't even risk chipping a fingernail in defense of mine.
Hey, if you want to hear an unsung artist with a kick-ass story song, go listen to Jak Kelly's "Winter Moon" at this link:
http://www.folkalley.com/openmic/song.php?id=74
I'm jealous 'cuz he wrote a great whorehouse song before I could get to it!!
Posted by: Jim Pipkin at May 25, 2006 3:39 PMThere are two phases to this. The initial reaction and then the subsequent strategy.
Rather than being contrived the initial apologies just looks like a typical reaction, by an individual or an organisation. You panic a bit and stumble out an apology ... then you think about it and maybe suddenly realise, screw you I've got nothing to apologise for. And you get defensive and defiant. It's a very high bar to expect when you are hit by that firestorm out of the blue every public comment and action will be consistent and perfectly judged.
So then there is the calculated marketing campaign. Well, duh. Its the music biz, they're selling albums. Ian Stewart practically invented the Rolling Stones but wasn't allowed to stay in the band because he didn't look right. Everything about the music business is calculated. And ... so what? Basically, the could not have predicted what one throw away sentence in London would have set off and have had to deal with it all best they can. Everyone is going to do that differently. I don't think there's a right way.
If they had released the album without a mention of "the incident" I wouldn't have been clamouring for it. But again its asking a lot of artists I think to demand they completely ignore one of the biggest music stories of the last generation in which they were the major players. It obviously had a big emotional effect on them and still does. They should ignore that? The sniping at mainstream country fans is dumb and I wish they wouldn't but ... of course they'd get criticised for saying nothing and being bland publicity bots too.
Anyway, top rant Sean. Can never have too many passionate rants! ;-)
Wow-some serious venom at neither the best nor worst act in country music. Me? If I don't listen to 'em, I just ignore them. Damn them long haired Beatles!
Posted by: Aging Hipster at May 25, 2006 10:38 PMI guess the Dixie Chicks have no respect for anyone but themselves - as shown throughout the entire saga - from the original comments (made in the "relative safety" of Europe") to their many turnabouts.
National Review Online talked about Dixie Chicks having to face up both free speech and free markets - capitalism is not the Dixies friend.
Wow! I can't believe I'm coming to the defense of someone I NEVER listen to. Some of these comments smack of sexism/jealousy........can't a girl(s) speak her mind? Yes, they've been succesful but it isn't like they are Celine Dion. Lloyd Maines, Charlie Robison, Rick Rubens, Patty Griffin, etc........they have a hell of lot more credibility/bloodlines/connections than most of the "hats" male or female regardless of their politics.
I gotta laugh about the original posting which seems intent to criticize the trio for almost anything. What? We're not allowed to change a lead singer if we think someone can do it better?
Or we're not allowed to reflect on a situation and have a different perspective a few years later?
I think my favorite that I've been reading is how mad people are that the ladies are for milking the original Bush remark (which is so feint in its execution it's hard to believe it could have caused any kind of effect - I mean, come on, guys, she said she was ashamed of the president basically, she didn't threaten assassination or even call him a name). It's as if the nutcases that have shunned them are angry that they're intent on promoting their record. I'd promote it any way I could personally. Why the hell shouldn't they?? I mean they've been banished from radio, the most effective means by which to promote a record, they've more than earned the right to discuss the incident as a means to promote the record seeing how the same incident is being used as a basis to deprive them of the airplay they would otherwise be getting.
Talk about wishy-washy: It's okay for all the censors to use the Bush incident as a justification to marginalize their music, yet the ladies aren't allowed to use the incident for anything that benefits them for their own ideolgy or agenda in response. About as wishy washy as our commander in chief, who used 'weapons of mass destruction' as justification to invade Iraq but changed the reason 'to liberate the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people' when they weren't found.
Posted by: Chris at June 7, 2006 6:55 AMI would dimiss the Chicks outright if "Home" weren't such a damn find CD. I'm sorry their running from Country, not all the fans (or artists) abandoned or attacked them, but your right, the whole thing now seems like a big calculated demographic land-grab to me.
Posted by: texastentialist at June 7, 2006 4:51 PMGood website and nice content.
[url=http://soma.rxsource.cn/soma-order-online.html]soma order online[/url]
