Talk:The Chicks/Archive 2
Archived discussions
I was surprised to read this part:
"By April, (Not Ready To Make Nice) was a hit on country radio and on country and Hot AC video television, albeit in Canada. American radio proved less receptive."
Really truly? What's the deal here? 3 years have passed since the controversy and much has changed.
The approval ratings of the president Maines criticized back in 2003 have dropped below 40% in 2006 and show no signs of shooting back up anytime soon. Shouldn't that mean that 60% of Americans now see things more or less the way she does, and have no reason to drive bulldozers over her CDs?
American radio stations need only look at the success of acts like Green Day, Pink and Audioslave, none of whom have kept their dislike of the Bush administration a secret. They have no reason to be afraid of a second public backlash if they play the singles from the current album.--24.36.179.114 13:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are confusing country music with rock and pop music. The country music audience is the 35% that still support Bush, so country music won't play the Chicks. Whether rock and pop stations do remains to be seen, but the Chicks don't really fit that format either. Their best chance is probably with adult contemporary, where "Landslide" was a big hit. Wasted Time R 14:47, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- awesome, thanks for stereotyping country listeners. that's exactly what corporate program managers and djs are doing when they don't play it or stop playing it because a small percentage complains. if you follow your stereotype, it's their kids that are dying in iraq, they'll be the most pissed off when it's all said and done. what will be of your backwater-hicks then?
- I think the stereotyping and silliness can stop now; the AP is reporting that "Taking the Long Way" hit number 1 on the Billboard country chart, and additionally is number 1 on the overall chart. (See here for details). Something tells me that after getting their latest Billboard, country radio programmers will lose their reluctance to program their stuff. --Dh100 00:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- The article is referring to the radio airplay of the latest single, "Not Ready to Make Nice", which actually hasn't lit up the airwaves (I believe it's down in the 40's somewhere). The Billboard album chart is another story. Voodoo4936 22:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Trying to predict the future...
I couldn't help commenting as read the following in this article on April 29, 2006...
"By April, the song was a hit on country radio and on country and Hot AC video television, albeit in Canada. American radio proved less receptive. However, with strong digital sales, the single made an impressive debut on the Billboard Hot 100 at number 28, the week's highest new entry for the week ending May 6, 2006".
Well, since that week isn't even here yet... You add it up... Just out of curiosity I checked the Billboard charts... no Dixie Chicks in the top 100... Oh yeah, thats next week....
It's a shame that their careers are were so impacted by something political they said. If you choose to bring political views into the public arena, you must be prepared to face the people that don't agree with you. I hope such a talented group can rebound from this and bring us more the kind of wonderful music they have bought us in the past. Best of luck to them.
Um... You DO realize that Billboard Charts are released online about 9 days before they're in record stores, right?
Personally, I'm more concerned as to whether or not the controversy has begun to affect their music. "Not Ready to Make Nice" is just one song, butI'm wondering if it reflects the whole album.
Landslide Credit
Though minor, I changed the "Landslide" reference to credit Fleetwood Mac instead of Stevie Nicks. Ms. Nicks did write the song, but it first appeared on Fleetwood Mac's self-titled album. Crediting it to Ms. Nicks may cause confusion, especially considering the fact that she has had a solo career outside of Fleetwood Mac. If the Dixie Chicks had covered "Hard Day's Night," I'm sure that we'd credit the Beatles, not Lennon/McCartney.
What do you all think?
- People credit Lennon-McCartney all the time. This could go either way, it's no big deal. Wasted Time R 01:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Red Link removal?
There are a few red links that I'm not sure will ever turn blue on their own. Laura Lynch left the music business entirely, and while Robin Lynn Macy has remained interested in her music, she's not been active to a level where she's likely to become commercially popular any time soon. While Patty Lege is playing in Nashville these days [1], she's not likely to break out, either. Both the Domestic Science Club and Big Twang have disbanded. And Crystal Clear Sound, the recording studio where the Chicks cut their first three albums, isn't a major player outside of Dallas. Most of these links have no references outside of this article and the articles for the indie albums (only exceptions are DSC and CCS, both easily fixed). Despite my personal connection to the subject, I recommend de-rezzing the links -- but I want to bounce it off other interested readers first. --Robertb-dc 16:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
- Sounds fine to me. Voodoo4936 22:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Just as I was about to to in and start delinking, it appears that Laura and Robin are included in the new Template:Dixie Chicks. There's already a note on the template's talk page about removing them, though -- and I've seconded the motion, for the same reasons as above, though I suggested that the template note "Current members". It does add a twist to the issue, though. --Robertb-dc 15:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
- Muddying the waters further, someone has created a two-sentence article on Robin. And one of the two sentences is incorrect. Now, someone will have to go through the VFD process. I'm going to go ahead and get rid of the links (there have been no objections), but I don't have time to figure out VFD at the moment. --Robertb-dc 23:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Atricle is better now.No? 205.188.117.8 23:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- The article on Robin Lynn Macy looks quite nice! Too bad I just eliminated a bunch of links to it. I guess it was just the Danger in the Air. :) If you're willing to build Robin's article, please feel free to undo my unlinkage. --Robertb-dc 23:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Fan site criteria
I'm going to post a note on User:Botilda's talk page about his her addition of dixie-chicks.biz to the Fan Sites list. Leaving aside the bad grammar and exclamation point in "The newest source to Dixie Chicks on the web!", the issue is whether a brand-new fan site is appropriate to include in Wikipedia. I wish him her the best of luck, but I'd suggest Botilda promote his/her site on more appropriate forums, like dixiechicksfans.net. --Robertb-dc 16:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- (Reply below was moved from my talk page, so that the community can discuss the issue. - Robertb-dc 14:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC))
Hey Robert :)
I tried to reach you through an e-mail account I found on your DC site, but it turned out to be unvalid.
It might have been a bit bold of me to add my site to the list of fansites, but it just didn't cross my mind that it would be considered inappropriate as I'm concerned promoting the girls and not myself. I guess you are a devoted fan contributing all that stuff to wikipedia about them and if you don't think the link is appropriate I guess I'll just have to deal with it.
I did read the linking rules: Request to add a link to your site from a Wikipedia article The content of Wikipedia pages, including external links, is determined entirely by our volunteers rather than any official editorial team. You may wish to read our guidelines on external links.
But I do see your point with my site being brand new and not offering as much content as some of the other sites. I wanted to let you know I have contacted the various DC sites like you suggested and I'll wait like everyone else to get my site listed at some search engine so fans can access it from there. I never intended to be inappropriate and I'm sorry for my bad grammar. ^^
Ann Irene
"Botilda 11:20, 18 May 2006 (UTC)"
- I appreciate the feedback. At this point I won't add a link to the site on wikipedia considering it's brand new, but if anyone else wants it to be there as it keeps growing that would be OK by me. ^^ Once again, sorry for the self-promotion.
- ~ Botilda 09:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- This is going to be an ongoing issue as the new album is coming out next week (5/23/06). In fact, another new fan site has just been added to both this article and to Natalie Maines. I'm hoping the rest of the community will weigh in on the issue, because I'm not comfortable cutting out every new link that pops up -- especially since I have a link in the section, myself, and I don't want to be accused of conflict of interest! --Robertb-dc 16:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
- Since noone has joined in on the discussion yet, I am giving it a go again! :] I've been working on the fansite 24/7 and will continue to do so to make sure I've earned my spot :) I added my link at the _bottom_. If anyone feel like it shouldn't be there, remove it and post here. Thank you.
- ~ Botilda 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Out of the blue, I found a link to the official policy: Wikipedia:External links. It has just one little paragraph on the topic, which suggests "On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such." That might be a bit restrictive. In the case of this page, you could make the argument that each site contributes a unique perspective, with some (like dixiechicksfaq.com and my own site, dixie-chicks.com) more like a reference than a "fan page". I don't think there's any action warranted against the large list of fan sites currently listed in the Dixie Chicks article, though new additions may face a more difficult hurdle than before. --Robertb-dc 22:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
"On Foreign Soil"
I removed this recently added language and had it immediately reverted back. I'll not play revert games over it, as I realize this is a collective process. I will however make my reasons plain for doing so.
The primary reason is that I think it's absolutely an appeal to a non-NPOV. When the controversy first occured, the primary objection among detractors was that the president had been criticized "during a time of war." That is was "on foreign soil" was secondary. Certain people did cite that, yes, but primarily commentators and after the fact. And also this was used primarily as a wedge, again, after the fact, to try to whip up sentiment against the group. Personally, using it at the top of the entry feels like what it was used for in the first place: an appeal to a non-NPOV. I think such terms are better used under the "Controversy" section when they can be better placed in context. --Dh100 21:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, you convinced me, I've rereverted. Wasted Time R 22:11, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. As I said, my intent isn't to move it off the page entirely, but to have it put someplace when it can have context supplied. --Dh100 22:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Gay Icons? revived discussion
Like I said in the archived discussion, the chicks have a lot of lesbian fans, so should they be added to the list of gay icons? Does this page count as proof? It is a gay-related page....
Lady6String 20:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I found thisarticle as well.
70.48.34.13 21:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
I just realized that category doesn't exist anymore! Sorry for all the trouble I've caused...
70.48.34.13 00:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
Dixie Chicks received support from left-wing people
I have added a reference in the opening paragraphs to the fact that the Dixie Chicks received support from left-wing people for their anti-Bush and anti-Iraq war sentiments. If Wikipedia strives for neutrality, then I think it is only fair that both aspects (the country backlash; the support from left-wingers) be mentioned. -- Andrew Parodi 00:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've modified your change to make it less specific to politics and to people. The country backlash is relevant because it was their musical genre; it shouldn't be labelled as left vs. right, since that greatly oversimplifies things. And mentioning Springsteen is too specific for the intro, which should be kept more general. Wasted Time R 03:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Okay. The only reason I mentioned Bruce Springsteen is because I felt that if I didn't list someone specific and then give a citation then my claim would be contested. My only point in this is that some people who had previously paid little or no attention to the Dixie Chicks (people generally considered "liberals" and on "the left") came to their defense when the lead singer made the anti-Bush comments. I think that's notable. Andrew Parodi 03:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
- Your point assumes that prior to the controversy, Dixie Chicks fans were mostly "conservatives". Actually, Chicks fans were mostly country music and pop music fans who liked themes of female-oriented adventure presented with sass. In other words, their appeal wasn't politically-based and thus extended across political lines. And the Chicks already had admirers in the classic rock world, include James Taylor and Stevie Nicks and probably Springsteen too. Wasted Time R 03:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
I don't think I assumed that at all. I think the article seems to imply that by only citing the reaction of their country/conservative-based following. The point you make only adds leverage to my claim that reactions from both sides of the political spectrum should be mentioned. -- Andrew Parodi 02:28, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- The full article does describe a number of different reactions to the controversy, but again, the political spectrum is irrelevant. "Liberal" and "conservative" aren't mentioned in the article at all, except for one reference to "culturally conservative", which is somewhat different from the spectrum. The intro, which is what we're discussing, simply says they lost some of their core country audience, which is undeniably true. The political affiliations of that audience are immaterial. Wasted Time R 03:42, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
None of this is explicitly stated, but to anyone with any analytical capabilities it is quite clear what is implied. Bush is a conservative Republican. Would liberal Democracts be offended by the Dixie Chicks' negative comments about Bush? Who would be angry about negative comments about Bush? Why, the conservative Republicans who support Bush, of course. By deduction, when you say that they lost members of their core audience, you are implying that aspects of their core audience are conservative Republicans who support Bush. So, while the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are never used in the article, they are certainly implied.
Because Wikipedia aims to be neutral, I think it is only fair that if you are going to imply (or state outright) that aspects of their core audience are conservative Republicans, then you must do the same with regard to their audience members who are liberal democrats who were not offended by their anti-Bush statements. If the anti-Bush statement is notable enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, and the pro-Bush conservative Republican reaction to those comments is notable enough to be mentioned in the introductory paragraphs, then why not the reactions of those who were not offended and in fact agreed with what they said? To me, including both sides is the only thing that keeps the intro truly neutral. -- Andrew Parodi 03:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- The intro does state that they gained new admirers. But as for your conclusions: You have to remember that much of America is apolitical -- only 50% vote in Presidential elections, a good deal less in all the lesser elections. Many Americans identify as moderates, independents, not interested, cynical about all politics, and so on. TV cable news shows love to divide everything into liberal vs. conservative battles, but it isn't nearly that simple. There are plenty of country music fans who are culturally conservative about patriotism, culturally liberal about women's roles, economically all over the map ... who knows what party they belong to. The Dixie Chicks' music is similarly hard to pin down ... is "Travellin' Soldier" liberal or conservative? "Top of the World"? "Long Time Gone"? These songs defy these foolish, oversimplifying labels, and I think the article should avoid them as much as possible too. Wasted Time R 04:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, my point still stands. Liberal Democrats and apolotical people are hardly going to be offended by anti-Bush comments. It is most likely people who are not apolitical, and people who are not liberal democrats, who are going to be offended by such comments. The intro refers to such people without using labels. But I have chosen to use those labels here for clarity. And I certainly understand that it is possible to be "mixed" with regard to politics. I've heard of cases of feminists working with rightwing Christians with regard to anti-pornography legislation; typically, rightwing Christians and feminists have little in common.
I'm not interested in forcing labels on anyone. All I'm doing is saying that the labels are implied by the way the intro was written before I came along and balanced it out with regard to the support they were given when they made those comments. I'm satisfied with the intro as it is now. -- Andrew Parodi 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Then we're in violent agreement :-) Wasted Time R 04:37, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Well, you know, you have to watch out for us Liberal Democrats. We take our Chicks very seriously. -- Andrew Parodi 04:45, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Liberal Democrats are not the people who would purchase 'The Dixie Chicks', even though they will publicly laud them. They destroyed their careers through stupidity! [01:51, 2 August 2006 66.30.204.238]
Random views
17-6-06 The chicks make great music but when they open their mouths its instant dumb azz. It does not matter the topic they don’t seem that intelligent just good musicians that’s all. [15:10, 17 June 2006 70.161.247.208]
That may be the point. If they stick to music, they're not that bad, but when they try to politicize, they invariably open mouth and insert foot. If they want to be political, then fine, but they need to decide. Kf4mgz 13:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
- Of course they need to decide. It would be outrageous if they did both music AND had anything to say about the way their country is run. / Botilda 23:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
Why is it ?
±--70.30.164.155 04:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)I guess being Canadian, I don't understand why there is a problem with the Dixie Chicks speaking out. Here we are allowed to voice our beliefs. Get people talking and allow discussion to take place. Our leaders can make poor choices and believe me they do. How can change take place for the better if people are puppets believing the leaders of a country are never wrong and not being allowed to speak out. I only wish I had been able to get tickets for their concert in Toronto, because I have their new cd and love it. Chicks are great and always have been. I believe they show us women have a voice and we should use it. They also have talent to boot. I hope they keep speaking out and I for one will listen. Then make up my own mind on the issues they raise. Canada loves the Chicks and would be proud of them if they were one of our own. spainter30@hotmail.com
Ummmmm perhaps because they were cowardly badmouthing Bush on the eve of war overseas!? I'm glad they and their families need bodyguards! Now they live in fear as do our soldiers! Karma always works! [01:54, 2 August 2006 66.30.204.238]
- I was there on the night Natalie Maines made her comment about Bush. All she said was that they didn't support the war and that they were ashamed that the President was from Texas. A lot of people took that to mean they were not patriotic, but this is not the case. there was not one person there on that night that didn't agree with what Natalie had said. The fact that they need bodyguards because of death threats saddens me, when people are persecuted for voicing their personal opinion. Whatever happened to free speech? Or can you only voice your opinion when it matches that of the President. Isn't America supposed to be the land of the free???--NeilEvans 12:35, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Record set?
I just saw some video countdown that claimed Not Ready to Make Nice was the first video to be #1 6 weeks in a row since 2002. Did I get that right? Sounds noteworthy, providing contrast to the songs original reception. Mathiastck 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Fiddle vs. violin
I'd like to point out that on the main page it is listed that Martie plays both the fiddle and the violin. Well, I guess it must not be known that the violin and the fiddle are one in the same. It is the manner in which the instrument is played that classifies the music. Also, the bow grip is much different with the two styles of playing. Just thought I'd set that straight, because it's a pet peeve of mine. The fiddle and violin are the same! [04:17, 31 July 2006 142.177.243.109]
- I agree that they're the same ... but on the main page I only see her listed for fiddle. Where do you see the violin? Wasted Time R 04:54, 31 July 2006 (UTC)