Elton attacks 'censorship' in US
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3902833.stm

Elton John has said stars are scared to speak out against war in Iraq because of "bullying tactics" used by the US government to hinder free speech.
"There's an atmosphere of fear in America right now that is deadly. Everyone is too career-conscious," he told New York magazine, Interview.

Sir Elton said performers could be "frightened by the current administration's bullying tactics",

The singer likened the current "fear factor" to McCarthyism in the 1950s.

"There was a moment about a year ago when you couldn't say a word about anything in this country for fear of your career being shot down by people saying you are un-American," he told the magazine.

The singer said things were different in the 1960s.

"People like Bob Dylan, Nina Simone, The Beatles and Pete Seeger were constantly writing and talking about what was going on.

Backlash

"That's not happening now. As of this spring, there have been virtually no anti-war concerts - or anti-war songs that catch on, for that matter," he said.

He voiced concern that it appeared acceptable to speak out if you were pro-Bush, using the example of country singer Toby Keith, but not if you were critical of the President, as in the case of country rock band, the Dixie Chicks.

"On the one hand, you have someone like Toby Keith, who has come out and been very supportive of the Bush administration and the war in Iraq - which is OK because America is a democracy and Toby Keith is entitled to say what he thinks and feels.

"But, on the other hand, the Dixie Chicks got shot down in flames last year for criticising the president. They were treated like they were being un-American, when in fact they have every right to say whatever they want about him because he's freely elected, and therefore accountable."

Sir Elton is currently in New York playing a series of concerts.

Thanks for the article...
 

but I found the above part about Toby Keith interesting...

He recently stated on a KWTV Channel 9 interview (His hometown is the OKC suburb Moore) that he has support for the troops but is totally against the war in Iraq, Mainly because he stated it seems "the facts did not support the real reason why we went into Iraq". I wonder why the national press never acknowledge's that?

It's funny, The recent comments made nationally about Toby Keith lately seem to be he is a pro-Shrub/hate-monger/war-monger whereas from the interview on KWTV he comes off as more "liberal-minded" than many are lead to believe...I'm not a fan of his by-the-way, But it's funny that his 30 minute interview made him sound the total opposite of what he has been betrayed as being.

As for Natalie Maines, She HAD my respect until the BS-fest she pulled during the Dixie Chicks May 2003 show in OK at the Ford Center...I can understand her frustration over the freedom to speak out against the war (She should be able to as Sir Elton says without having a backlash), But when her OWN fans wore shirts that also showed their FREEDOM OF SPEECH (Some in support of the Shrub adminstration & MAINLY those FIGHTING overseas) and you had requested your security GOONS to have ANY fans wearing THOSE shirts to either forfeit the shirts or be ejected outta the show I find that as total hypocritical BS (Especially when some of the fans INTIMIDATED were 10 yr old girls who were showing support for their Father who is in the US Air Force)!!!! This was reported widely by several media outlets in and around Oklahoma, Even by some that supported the DC until this episode occurred.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/21/lkl.00.html

KING: That's Toby Keith with -- now, Willie Nelson and you do not share the same politics.

KEITH: No.

KING: Willie Nelson is a very, very liberal guy.

KEITH: Yes.

KING: And you could be called on the conservative end.

KEITH: Yes.
(snip)
CALLER: Don't you think it's a shame when you -- when some of your material kind of gets censored by the government? Like what happened to you and the Dixie Chicks?

KEITH: Yeah, I don't think I was censored by the government.

KING: No one censored you.

KEITH: And Pete Jennings, Pete Jennings isn't running for any office, is he?
(snip)
KING: What do you make over the argument about Iraq? It's obviously going to be big in the campaign.

KEITH: You know, I don't know. My stance on that has always been, I knew we were going into Afghanistan, no way around it. Without the Afghanistan country just turning over the Taliban and Osama and everybody to us, I knew there was going to be some conflict there, so I always feel for the troops and their families when they're going in.

And again, knowing their going into Iraq. It's not -- I've never had an opinion on it. I don't think that I'm supposed to have an opinion. I thought we were supposed to be in Afghanistan, but even though I was uncertain whether we were supposed to be in Iraq or not, I trust Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld and the president, whoever that may be at the time of war, a lot more than I trust...

KING: So if your president commits to war, you have to commit?

KEITH: I'm an American and I have to support our troops. At some point the anti-war stuff in America gets to looking to our troops like anti-American stuff.

KING: What do you do if you're a citizen who honestly opposes?

KEITH: You can support -- I'm all for you supporting that up until the war starts. Once the war starts, I think everybody needs to support -- somebody's got a mother, daughter, brother, sister, son whatever over there laying on the line for us so we can stay here in this big Disneyland we live in. I think you have to support them. They don't want to be over there any worse than the anti-war people. They want to be home with their kids, but they're not. They're over there fighting and I think they need all the support they can get more so about whether we should be at war or not.

This is a weird little coincidence...
KING: Where were you on the morning of 9/11?

KEITH: I was at a thoroughbred horse sale in Kentucky and...

KING: Do you own horses?

KEITH: Yes, I own thoroughbreds. And the FBI, I guess, had come in, and there was two Saudi Arabian princes that come in and buy horses at these sales, and they had big 747s there at the Lexington airport. And on my way to the sale that morning, they were -- the police were all around that -- those...

KING: Looking at the planes.

KEITH: Shutting those planes down

I wonder if his recent comments are because he's seeing some kind of backlash? :shrug:

Exactly...
 

why his comments have changed...One of the reasons I am not a fan of his, He seems to remind me of a "politician" who cannot decide which view he is for, Man his views sure changed from Jan 2004 to May 2004 (His interview with KWTV was immediately after the CMA's in May) :lol:

Though I will admit I like to rip on him because he used to wear a "Shag-mullet" years ago...LOL!!!!!

Btw, Censorship is why Al "What else can I create?" Gore did not get my vote in 2000, I remember this "organization" his wife participated in that was Pro-censorship of music (Tipper went as far as to once state "If my husband ever becomes President the PMRC will have easier access to censoring music")...I wasnt taking any chances with the censorship BS from Al Bore, But yet Shrub is a censor too, Tsk...tsk...tsk...

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Whatdoya expect...
 

from a redneck named Toby, A crew cut? Btw, A redneck named Toby is "very intimidatin'"...NOT!

I will (hopefully) be seeing his "liberal" bud Willie Nelson in concert soon along with the legendary Bob "...Mumbles..." Dylan

Brian "mulle-mulle-mulle-mulle" (Think Austin Powers in "Goldmember", But substitute the word "Mole" with "Mullet") j.

What a dumbass. :laugh: I'd like to know how our invading Iraq is protecting us and the fact that he trusts ChimpCo is the biggest giveaway. AND - he has the balls to say everyone should support every American operation, how ridiculous.

As for the Elton article, I agree. The current state of things reminds me of the Vietnam era. Remember what happened to Eartha Kitt and Jean Seberg? It's now happening to Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, and Whoopi Goldberg.

He's an idiot. I think some of the lyrics are "We'll put a boot in your ass" or something. Yeah, and he wonders why people all over the world hate this country and its people. :rolleyes:

I'm not sure I understand your position. Wouldn't you consider this censorship too? I wouldn't, but then I don't think what happened to the Chicks was censorship either. Their fan base, largely from the South or from the country genre of music, didn't agree with what they said. So they voiced theirs' by boycotting them. So what? The Chicks are still around and have every right to say what they want to, and do. Wouldn't be any different if an actor or actress expressed conservative opinions. You can bet there'd be some backlash from that by the largely liberal crowd in Hollywood.

Personally...
 

I think Toby Keith has jealousy issues due to the fact that Natalie Maines Mohawk mullet is more masculine than his shag mullet was in the late 80's...

Honestly, I think Natalie & Toby need to go play Twister in a mine field!!!!

The song you have is called "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue." Its lyrics that include the timeless gem, "We'll put a boot in your a$$, it's the American way." :rolleyes: It was actually written about the Sept. 11 attacks and the war in Afghanistan, but by the time it was all over country radio, all the chatter about Iraq made people associate it with that war instead. I also recall that a major network news anchorman (I think it was Peter Jennings) criticized Toby for the language and badass attitude in the song.

Toby made himself look even more pro-Iraq war when he engaged the Dixie Chicks in a feud. Shortly after Natalie Maines made her infamous comments, Toby showed a giant doctored photo of Natalie sitting in Saddam Hussein's lap at a concert of his (or maybe it was an awards show appearance, I don't recall). Natalie responded by showing up at the next major awards show wearing a T-shirt that read, "F.U.T.K." And I think it died down after that. I guess the children took a time out and went to sulk in their separate corners. :laugh:

The song with the line about not knowing the difference between Iraq and Iran was "Where Were You When The World Stopped Turning" by Alan Jackson. Alan seems to be quite socially conservative, so I guess he has that in common with Toby, but they're otherwise quite different. Alan is much more low-key and, IMO, much more respectful of women in his music, even if he does seem to believe in traditional husband and wife roles.

As for Toby's popularity, I think his appeal is with two main groups. One is the so-called NASCAR dads, i.e., white, male, working-class, socially conservative, frequently gun-owning good ol' boys, and the other is women who are attracted to good ol' boys with a bit of badass in them. The former of these two categories happens to be a demographic Nashville is targeting aggressively these days, and that probably accounts for the fact that Toby is all over country radio--although, it seems like every time I hear someone requesting one of his songs on our local country stations, it's a woman in the second category. Generally speaking, country fans (who are all over the country, but are most heavily concentrated in the South, the Plains states and the Rocky Mountain region) are divided on whether they like Toby or not, and most of the non-country fans just roll their eyes at him. Personally, I didn't care for him even before he became the poster child for red-state American uber-patriotism. His past hits have included such gems as "You Ain't Much Fun Since I Quit Drinking" and "A Little Less Talk And A Lot More Action." And of course, there's "I'm Just Talking About Tonight"--a song that basically expresses the sentiment, "Hey, baby, I don't want a relationship or commitment or nuthin' like that, I just wanna get naked with you tonight." Kind of ironic coming from a genre whose largest fan base is red-state Repugs who just love their Christian family values.

I could go on and one for paragraphs about how unlistenable country music has become during Dubya's reign of terror, but that's a whole other thread.

Incidentally, I've read elsewhere that Toby is actually a registered Democrat, but a very conservative one.

Eileen

Well, country music performers have been spouting mindless conservative drivel for a lot longer than Dubya's been in office. Charlie Daniels and Hank Williams, Jr. are two that spring immediately to mind.

There's a small vein of country performers that aren't wingnuts, and those are the ones I tend to listen to. You have to search a little bit to find them, but it's worth it. I don't listen to country radio at all. It's complete crap.

It just makes me love Elton John even more that he speaks out like that, considering there are probably many who wouldn't. Just as a sidenote, I would want to say that the Dixie Chicks still aren't being played here in Amarillo, which is only two hours away from Natalie's hometown -- Lubbock.

About Toby Keith, I hate the man personally, he has just came to represent something that I really don't like. Most people around here call it "patriotic," but I think most others find it as I do, ignorant.

I don't believe that Lux was talking about censorship, but rather the reaction that most people SHOULD have in regards to someone displaying an ignorant statement such as not knowing (or caring) about the difference between Iraq and Iran, but feeling we should just bomb 'em all.

And there are plenty of famous performers who express conservative opinions... Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger, James Wood, Lara Flynn-Boyle, Chuck Norris, Pat Sajak, Dennis Miller and Kelsey Grammar, being chief among them... and I very rarely hear anyone blast them or conduct boycotts of their films, etc., the way the conservative/Republican party was boycotting and blasting the Dixie Chicks and anyone else speaking out against the war in Iraq.

There is a very scary mindset in the US right now, that to be anything other than a conservative is to be Anti-American, un-patriotic, or, worse, a "commie."

Good point. I've only been a country fan for about six years, and its entirely possibly that I stumbled into the scene during a particularly open-minded period. The mid to late 90s were a great time for women in country, and it seems that women are often the ones who address the more progressive and controversial topics in country music. Shania Twain's modern working woman persona is a far cry from the good little barefoot-and-pregnant housewife of Falwell and Robertson's dreams. And Martina McBride made a name for herself singing about topics like domestic violence and child abuse, and did so without resorting to preaching. Before them, you had people like Loretta Lynn singing about "The Pill" and Tammy Wynette singing about "D-I-V-O-R-C-E," but the female voices rose to a new level of influence in the 90s as women like Faith, Shania and the Chicks ruled the charts. In addition, whether you think he's overrated or not, Garth Brooks was a new breed of country star who didn't fit into conservative stereotypes--I remember a bit of controversy arising among country fans back in '98 or '99 or so when Garth sang alongside Elton John and George Michael at a gay rights benefit concert. Even if I don't always like his music and think he has a bit of an ego, the man won my respect right then. And you can never overestimate the impact Garth had on country music in the 90s.

But since around 2000, women have been pushed out of the spotlight more and more in country music. If you don't believe that, look at how often a woman has won any major country music award other than Female Vocalist, or how often a woman has had a #1 hit on the Billboard Country Chart. Recently, we had Gretchen Wilson's "Redneck Woman"--a song with major red-state appeal. Before that, the most recent #1 was Martina McBride's "Blessed"--an ode to wedded, familial bliss--in March of 2002. Martina seems to have been appointed the token female superstar in country at the moment because she's very wholesome and family-friendly. But I miss the edge her music used to have. She's gone from singing about domestic violence ("Independence Day") and child abuse ("Concrete Angel") and social responsibility ("Love's The Only House") to singing about motherhood ("In My Daughter's Eyes") and girl power ("This One's For The Girls"). Moreover, Garth has gone into retirement (and his last few songs have failed to get much airplay). So now it seems like you can't listen to country radio for more than five minutes without hearing some song that sounds like it was written by either Dubya's propaganda machine or the Christian Coalition. If I want to be preached at, I'll go to church, thank you very much. :mad:

Really? Who are they and where can I find their music????? :D

Eileen

Exactly, it's not. The question I posed was rhetorical. Everyone has different opinions and reacts differently. To not let someone express their opinion would be censorship. Apparently Toby Keith doesn't sell too well in Australia. So what? They have every right to buy or not buy his music. I was merely making the point that a lot of the Chicks fans reacted in the same way as Lux and her fellow Aussies reacted to Toby Keith. I'm really not saying who's viewpoint I agree with, that's beside the point. I"m simply saying that I don't agree with the censorship remark Elton made by citing what happened to the Dixie Chicks.


And you could say that there is a mindset that anyone who is not a liberal, hates, is a thug, a criminal, etc., etc., etc. Or anyone from the South is a redneck and stupid. There are lots of scary mindsets in the US. The scarier mindset to me is the one of labeling people and the division it causes.

To be fair, the song in question, Alan Jackson's "Where Were You When The World Stopped Turning," was about the immediate gut reaction of people when they first learned about the Sept. 11 attacks. Mostly he talks about fear, shock and the impulse to cling tightly to your loved ones. I don't think he says anything about military retaliation. The bit about Iraq and Iran goes as follows: "I'm just a singer of simple songs / I'm not a real political man / I watch CNN but I'm not sure I could tell you / The difference in (sic) Iraq and Iran / But I know Jesus and I talk to God / And I remember this from when I was young / Faith, hope and love are some good things he gave us / And the greatest is love." I could do without the preachy Jesus bit, but I don't see anything in there about bombing 'em all. It's also worth noting that the example of Iraq and Iran was written before all the noise started about Iraq and WMDs--I think AJ just picked the two most obvious countries in the Middle East whose names would get mixed up by someone who's not very politically astute.

Of course, I agree that if anyone did write a song about "Iraq, Iran, what's the difference, let's bomb 'em all," it would be the very height of blind, hyper-patriotic hubris and ignorance.

Geez, I didn't even know half of them were conservatives. Also, have you noticed that when famous performers--actors, singers, sports figures, etc.--get involved in politics, they're almost invariably Repugs? Saint Ronald, Sonny Bono, Fred "Gopher" Grandy, Mike Ditka and the Governator....not a Democrat in the bunch.

"The 1950s called...they want their mindset back!" :laugh:

Seriously, though, at least the 1950s had a valid excuse for distrusting left-wing politics, given the Cold War and the threat of nuclear conflict with the ultra-far-left. Of course, the extremism of Soviet communism begat an equally extreme reaction on the right in the form of McCarthy's witch hunts. It seems like the ultra-far-left and the ultra-far-right have a lot more in common with each other than anyone in between the two extremes, but I can see how the average ignorant Joe Schmo might easily have associated anybody left of Eisenhower with communism.

But today there's no excuse for it. The most pressing threat to our country comes from ultra-religious fundamentalist Muslim radicals, and it seems like our leaders are responding to it, not by doing the opposite, but by governing our own country with ultra-religious fundamentalist Christian radicalism. Yet the average bloke who gets his information mostly in sound bytes and catch phrases is still swallowing Reagan's crapola about government being the problem, and at the same time fails to realize that a government run by today's Repugs is a far greater problem than the Democratic-run government of the late 1970s ever was.

Eileen

But there is a bit of a difference between simply yelling at the TV or booing, and boycotting someone and burning their albums, no?
Booing or not buying someone's albums is expressing an opinion... but banning their music from the radio and denying them their right to make a living, because of their views, is censorship.

I, for one, don't believe that being a conservative means you're a hater or a criminal... in fact, I have several friends and family who are conservative, so I know that to be untrue.
However, I am still baffled that anyone who claims to be for gay rights (or, at the very least, not against them), could vote for the very politicians who are actively working to deny gay rights.
Same thing with the environment and other social issues. If someone is against the fact that their party has worked to cut medicare and social security, or if they're angered by the fact that jobs are being outsourced with the encouragement of their political party, or if they're displeased that their party isn't more concerned about environmental issues, then why vote for them?
Isn't your vote tantamount to agreeing with the stances of the party and candidates for whom you're voting? :shrug:

Thanks for posting, Eileen... I had Alan Jackson's song and Toby Keith's song mixed-up, and I appreciate you clearing it up for me. :)

I know that what I did hear of Toby Keith's "boot in your ass" song, raised the hairs on the back of my neck, and left me hoping that folks in other countries don't think ALL Americans think or act that way.

Have to disagreee with you there, although the rest of your posts are very insightful. The most pressing threat to our country comes from ultra-religious fundamentalist right wing Christians occupying the highest positions of power within our own government.

Well y'all can blame...
 

Peter Jennings for Toby "Mulle-mulle-mulle" Keith's rise to fame...If ol' "comb-over" would let him had his 15 minutes (Since he is a redneck we'll give him 10 since 15 is too high for 'im to count too) of fame on that LAME 4th of July show this "Oklahoma Cow Pattie" would have dried up in the sun & been a forgotten "Mullet" memory already...

Thanks ya bald putz...

Not necessarily. I was vehemently pro-life back in 1992, but I voted for Bill Clinton because I felt that Aitch-Dubya was trying to ride his success in the Gulf War I to an easy victory without paying enough attention to domestic issues. I doubt there are many people who agree with everything their party stands for; it's just a matter of picking which one comes closer to representing your viewpoint, or which one is in line with your views on the issues that matter to you most. And sometimes when you analyze the facts more closely, you realize that what appeared one way on the surface is actually just the opposite.

Case in point, I still believe that abortion is wrong in most cases, although I'm no longer in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade, but I would never vote for a Repug on that basis. Why? Because if you look more closely at their stance on all the issues, you'll find that they're in favor of cutting off access to abortion while at the same time doing everything they can to increase the demand. For example, the odious Sen. Rick Santorum--and I'm as ashamed that he's from PA as Natalie Maines is that Dubya is from Texas--is one of the most vehemently anti-abortion politicians in Congress. Yet he voted against subsidized child care--a major need for poor single mothers--with the words, "Well, making someone struggle a bit isn't necessarly a bad thing." Excuse me, but you can't have it both ways. If you're against abortion, your primary goal should be to do whatever it takes to decrease the number of abortions performed. That means voting in favor of whatever aid can be made available to help single mothers in need, promoting a complete program of sex education at no later than the junior high school level, ensuring universal access to effective contraception, etc. So in my opinion, it's really the Democrats who are working to cut the demand for abortions, which is the only effective way to deal with the problem.

As for people who claim to be in favor of gay rights but vote for Repugs who want to deny them....Johnny, I'm in the same boat as you are, and I feel like beating my head against the wall every time I hear someone who seems like a perfectly nice and intelligent person say they support Dubya. I want to shout at them, "What? You support a president who wants to make me a second-class citizen? I thought you liked me!" But the problem is, for most people who are not gay themselves, or who don't have a very close family member or friend who is, gay rights rank way, way down on their list of priorities. The reason the fight is so difficult for us is that there are so few of us who are directly and immediately affected by the Religious Wrong's tactics. And we're more invisible than, say, black people were in the South 40 years ago, because unless you have exceptionally good gaydar, you often can't tell a gay person from a straight person. So heteros don't realize how many of us there are. Think about it, when you hear people discussing the amendment, what are the two major voices you year? Bible-beaters screeching about how important it is to protect their traditional, narrow-minded definition of family. And Democrats saying, "Hey, wait a minute, there are far more important things to worry about." You don't hear many voices speaking up and saying, "Not only should we defeat this amendment, but we should be doing everything we can to ensure equal access of same-sex couples to the more than 1,000 legal benefits that married heteros take for granted. For every day that we delay in this, another gay couple is denied the right to make medical decisions, inherit property without a heavy tax burden or receive the often-crucial financial relief of Social Security benefits for a deceased partner." The only people fighting on that front seem to be us, the affected, and the few straight folks who are close enough with one or more of us to care that much about our well-being. Unfortunately, I don't see that changing anytime soon. :(

Eileen

Ooops, my bad! I meant to say the most pressing threat from outside our own government come from ultra-religious, fundamentalist Muslim radicals who have more in common with Dubya and Co. than either group would ever dare admit. :laugh:

Eileen

According to an...
 

interview I read of Alan Jackson he never intended to release "Where Were You (When The World Stopped Turning)" because it was a personal song and he DID NOT want it to become a song that would cause controversy like other country songs (ie-Mullet Man's "Courtesy of the Red, White & Blue")

I was agreeing...
 

with your previous post. I cannot see how people equated Alan Jackson beautiful song with "Mullet Man's" track "Courtesy of the Redneck, Whitetrailer trash & the Blue"

LOL, don't you mean "Courtesy of the Rednecks, the White Trailer Trash and the Blue-State Haters?" :laugh:

Personally, I always took AJ's song as saying, more or less, "I'll admit, I'm not very knowledgable on all the political implications of what happened, probably not as much as I should be....but even with my limited knowledge, this is what I do understand about what's happened and how I'm feeling about it." I got the impression he was portraying his ignorance of the countries in the Middle East more as a personal weakness than as something to brag about. I certainly don't think he meant to encourage a "Who cares about 'em, us Americans is all that counts" attitude. From what I know of the larger context of AJ's music, that would be extremely out of character for him.

Eileen

Actually...
 

I couldnt decide on anything that went with blue...Except for balls, And that sounded rather tacky.

You're comment on AJ's song is EXACTLY how he meant it...The man made a simple but yet strong statement with his composition.

It's all freedom of expression. I'm sure that the reason their stuff wasn't being played on certain radio stations was because the people who listened to those particular radio stations didn't want to hear it. Is there anything wrong with that? Doesn't capitalism cater to what people want or don't want? Their fans in certain markets drove that, not some political machine. The bottom line is that their music is still being played on radio stations across America. They hardly are being denied a right to make a living. The Chicks aren't hurting a bit. And they still have the right to diss W. any time they want to.

Well Brian, because you're one of the more level headed ones. But I see it plenty from people who post on these boards and in my own personal life. The whole mindset issue you brought up slices both ways. Generally speaking you do vote for the party or the candidate that best supports your beliefs or the majority of them. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them all. You know, what Eileen said! :)

Actually, I seem to recall reading that Clear Channel was largely responsible for the Chicks being blackballed from the radio. From what I recall, they supposedly banned the Chicks at all their radio stations--and they own well over 1,000 of them across the country--and staged CD-smashing events hosted by some of their country stations. And let's not forget this happened at a time when the 800-pound gorilla of radio ownership was lobbying for a favorable ruling from the FCC on the market share issue, so they had a possible motive to kiss up to the Republican administration that had nothing to do with patriotism. I'm not saying there weren't individual radio programmers who were offended, but I wonder how widespread the ban would have been if you removed Clear Channel from the equation.

Eileen

You probably did. Actually, a lot of good stuff came out from the mid-to-late '80s to early '90s. Lyle Lovett, Dwight Yoakam, and Steve Earle, were part of the first wave of country greatness that happened around 1986 or so. And a lot of people don't know that k.d. lang started out as a country singer.

Loretta Lynn would probably be burned at the stake if she tried to release "The Pill" in the current country radio climate. Most radio stations banned the song back then, as it was. Now, I'm afraid the reaction would be much more venomous. I've never been a fan of Faith Hill or Shania Twain. They just seem too "safe," compared to someone like Loretta. The Dixie Chicks are good, though.

I agree about Garth Brooks, though. I've never liked his music too much either, but I can't think of any other country performer who's stuck his neck out like that for gay rights, and for that reason alone he gets a lot of respect from me.

Well...perhaps a lot of what I'm talking about would be labeled "folk," but since most of what passes for country today is really pop music, perhaps what they're calling "folk" now is really what they would've called "country" about 30 years ago.

Anyway...

I've always liked Mary Chapin Carpenter, who doesn't get much airplay anymore, but she's still making great music. Lyle Lovett is another. And I don't know if you're into bluegrass at all, but it's seen a revival of sorts in the last 2 or 3 years. Alison Krauss + Union Station, Nickel Creek, and Dolly Parton have made some pretty accessible bluegrass stuff in the last few years. Gillian Welch is good, too.

It's weird how the very music that I hated when I was in high school is the exact kind of thing I'm absolutely crazy about now.

I hope I haven't completely derailed this thread. :D

Well I'm not disputing what you're saying here Eileen. But I really believe that if the listeners wanted to hear the Chicks played on their radio staion, that radio staion would play it. There are numerous corporations that side with political parties and their agendas and back them with money, airplay, and/or newsprint.

You mean like when everyone freaked out when Imagine was played after 9/11? [/sarcasm]

Kudos to Garth but didn't he out his sister in a national magazine interview first without telling her first?

http://www.thestranger.com/2004-03-04/city2.html

CLEAR FEAR
Music Community Worries About Clear Channel Expansion in Seattle
by Josh Feit

Local music promoters are nervous about the City of Seattle's official field trip to Denver. The Denver visit--put together by the city's Office of Economic Development--is rumored to include some face time with Clear Channel, the $8.4 billion Fortune 500 radio conglomerate.

In Denver, Clear Channel owns more than radio bandwidth. In addition to eight stations, the company owns a popular 3,000-seat music venue called the Fillmore Auditorium that works with Clear Channel's $2.6 billion promotion subsidiary, Clear Channel Entertainment, to promote midsize shows by the likes of Ludacris, the Strokes, and Belle & Sebastian. Word is, Clear Channel wants to replicate that model in Seattle--owning radio stations, promo companies, and venues--by locating a 5,000-square-foot downtown space for a club like the Fillmore here. (It would be the next logical step for Clear Channel in Seattle, since Clear Channel Entertainment and a block of five Clear Channel radio stations, including popular KUBE 93, are already in place.)

Clear Channel's "corporate synergy"--owning venues, promotion companies, and radio stations that promote its shows--is precisely what worries local music boosters like Dave Meinert. As Seattle politicians begin to embrace our local music industry [See "Seattle City Limits," by Erica C. Barnett, February 19], the city might be susceptible to Clear Channel's faux groovy pitch in Denver, which could include an enticing peek at Clear Channel's successful Fillmore venue.

Meinert, a promoter, band manager, and president of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Recording Academy, worries that if Clear Channel's vertical business model took hold in Seattle, it would give Clear Channel a lock on the city's music-touring business, which is currently fiercely independent. "I didn't see it when they first came in and bought up local radio stations, but they're targeting Seattle," Meinert says. "What we're seeing now is them putting together all the pieces."

Meinert has a plan to undercut Clear Channel's pitch, though. He wants Seattle's Denver delegation, including Mayor Greg Nickels, to meet a Denver local named Doug Kauffman. Kauffman is president of a Denver promotions company called Nobody in Particular Presents (NIPP). Kauffman is suing Clear Channel in federal court, accusing Clear Channel of antitrust violations; i.e., using its radio-station clout to nab acts when they come to town by dangling guaranteed radio play and promotion. Conversely, NIPP's suit claims that Clear Channel punishes acts who choose NIPP's promotion services over Clear Channel's by excluding those bands from the airwaves and by undermining NIPP radio ads and promos on Clear Channel-owned radio stations.

"Many in the [Seattle] music-business community are concerned about Clear Channel gaining any more control of the music business in Seattle," Meinert wrote to Nickels in a March 1 e-mail. "I encourage you to meet with Doug Kauffman while you are in Denver."

Meinert told The Stranger: "I think Clear Channel is doing to music what Wal-Mart has done to retail."

Clear Channel is based in San Antonio, Texas. As of press time, Company spokesperson Lisa Dollinger did not return calls or e-mail inquiries about their intentions in Seattle or about the antitrust suit.

Kauffman would not talk about the lawsuit, but says, "I would love to sit down with your mayor and answer any questions he might have about the impact that Clear Channel has on a music scene."

Clear Channel Entertainment already owns a big Seattle-area venue (Auburn's new White River Amphitheatre, which books shows like Radiohead, Blink-182, and Ozzfest) and Clear Channel Entertainment has received $1.9 million in annual contracting work from local nonprofit Seattle Theatre Group for theater and concert promotions.

A midsize venue in downtown Seattle would help Clear Channel make inroads into the smaller indie market. Seattle does not have many venues that size, and as one Capitol Hill club booker put it, "If they opened up a 1,000- to 3,000-seater, you can bet they'd start getting exclusives on the midlevel acts."

Clear Channel is the nation's largest radio broadcaster with more than 1,200 stations. It is also the country's largest concert promoter: Clear Channel Entertainment exclusively books 130 venues, and is credited with almost single-handedly consolidating the live-entertainment-venue industry by spending nearly $2 billion in acquisitions over the last five years.

Nickels' office did not return calls --so we don't know if his schedule will include time with Clear Channel or Kauffman.

"We want to encourage the mayor's office to meet with the Seattle music industry before making decisions that would negatively affect the existing Seattle music industry," says Deborah Semer, executive director of the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Recording Academy.

Political contributions of the Mays-owners of Clear Channel
 

Mays, Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78265
Clear Channel/outdoor advertising
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 06/28/04
Mays, Mark
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel/outdoor advertising
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 06/28/04
Mays, Randall
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel/outdoor advertising
OUTDOOR ADVERTISING ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 06/28/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chief Execu
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 05/28/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President &
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 05/28/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 05/28/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chief Execu
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 05/14/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President &
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 05/14/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 05/14/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 04/30/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 04/30/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 04/30/04
Mays, L. Lowry Mr.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Communications Inc./C
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (R) $5000 04/28/04
Mays, Peggy P. Mrs.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Homemaker
REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE (R) $25000 04/28/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 04/15/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 04/15/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 04/15/04

Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 03/31/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 03/31/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 03/31/04
Mays, Randall T. Mr.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Communications/Execut
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS TELEVISION AND RADIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 03/25/04
Mays, Randall T.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Exec. VP/CF MCCAUL, MICHAEL (R)
House (TX 10)
MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS,INC $2000 03/22/04
Mays, L. Lowry Mr.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Communications/Chairm
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS TELEVISION AND RADIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 03/18/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78265
Clear Chanel Communications/Preside BONILLA, HENRY (R)
House (TX 23)
TEXANS FOR HENRY BONILLA $2000 03/18/04
Mays, Paula
San Antonio, TX 78209 MCCAUL, MICHAEL (R)
House (TX 10)
MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS,INC $2000 03/17/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 03/15/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 03/15/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 03/15/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78265
Clear Channel Communications/Presid MCCAUL, MICHAEL (R)
House (TX 10)
MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS,INC $2000 03/11/04
Mays, Mark P.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C MCCAUL, MICHAEL (R)
House (TX 10)
MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS,INC $4000 03/11/04
Mays, Peggy P.
San Antonio, TX 78212
Homemaker/Homemaker MCCAUL, MICHAEL (R)
House (TX 10)
MCCAUL FOR CONGRESS,INC $2000 03/11/04
Mays, Mark P. Mr.
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Communications/Presid
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BROADCASTERS TELEVISION AND RADIO POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $5000 03/10/04
MAYS, MARK P
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209
CLEAR CHANNEL HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R)
Senate - TX
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE $1000 03/08/04
MAYS, MARK P
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78209
CLEAR CHANNEL HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R)
Senate - TX
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE $1000 03/08/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 02/27/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 02/27/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 02/27/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 02/13/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 02/13/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 02/13/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 01/30/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 01/30/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 01/30/04
MAYS, L LOWRY
SAN ANTONIO, TX 78265
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R)
Senate - TX
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE $2000 01/23/04
Mays, L. Lowry
San Antonio, TX 78212
Clear Channel Worldwide/Chairman/CE
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $416 01/15/04
Mays, Mark P
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/President/C
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 01/15/04
Mays, Randall T
San Antonio, TX 78209
Clear Channel Worldwide/Executive V
CLEAR CHANNEL COMMUNICATIONS INC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE $289 01/15/04

It was Clear Channel that banned them, not the audience. Clear Channel also yanked Howard and refused to expand Randi Rhodes' audience when she was in Florida, then yanked her when she was up against Rush and whipping his ass in the ratings.