Anyone have problems with actors using their fame

[Dan Gross]

Exactly....and that's why it bothers me, too. While I don't subscribe to the idea that actors, musicians, or athletes OWE their success to the fans, I do think showing respect for your audience is a good thing. If I go to a concert, I have the most important thing in common with just about everyone else at the show - we all enjoy that particular performer. If you start using the performace as a platform for your political agenda, you run the risk of alienating a percentage of your fan base. Sure it's their right....it's just not cool, IMO.

724878[/snapback]

 

...and of course the artists are not generally aware of that, and don't generally feel the net effects on their pocketbook....The funny things is that after that statement, the Chicks played a sold-out North American tour and were the top-grossing country tour of 2003 (source).

 

Artistry, creative expression, are all about emotions and feeling. Artists get panned for performances that seem to "dry" or "robotic," like they are "going through the motions." But if that same passion drives them to say something about what they believe beyond the fact that they like big butts, that's "not cool" as well...

[ajzepp]

...and of course the artists are not generally aware of that, and don't generally feel the net effects on their pocketbook....The funny things is that after that statement, the Chicks played a sold-out North American tour and were the top-grossing country tour of 2003 (source).

 

Artistry, creative expression, are all about emotions and feeling.  Artists get panned for performances that seem to "dry" or "robotic," like they are "going through the motions."  But if that same passion drives them to say something about what they believe beyond the fact that they like big butts, that's "not cool" as well...

724886[/snapback]

 

See, I guess that's partly why this bothers me too....they already HAVE a vehicle for expressing their political/religious/sexual viewpoints....throught their MUSIC. If you want to TALK about this stuff, go on Oprah....I dunno, they're going to do what they want to do anyway, lol.

[Kelly the Dog]

Exactly....and that's why it bothers me, too. While I don't subscribe to the idea that actors, musicians, or athletes OWE their success to the fans, I do think showing respect for your audience is a good thing. If I go to a concert, I have the most important thing in common with just about everyone else at the show - we all enjoy that particular performer. If you start using the performace as a platform for your political agenda, you run the risk of alienating a percentage of your fan base. Sure it's their right....it's just not cool, IMO.

724878[/snapback]

It's quite a jump to go from one throwaway line between songs, like the Chicks did, to a 15 minute PSA for the Republican Party. I suppose I would think that isn't kosher myself, that's a little overboard. But I have never heard of anything like that, except in political events like The No Nukes concert.

 

And there are certain times when it is okay to be pissed at political comments, IMO, when certain elements are involved. The Oscars, for example, are often a small soapbox for actors spewing their personal causes. I don't like when they do it at all, I would prefer them not to at this venue, and I may like one less for doing it, but it is their right to do it, and it doesn't denigrate, for me anyway, their perfromance in the film or their career.

 

However, a couple years ago, when Michael Moore was going to receive an Oscar for Bowling For Coulumbine, they pleaded with him before the show not to do it, he said he wouldn't, and then immediately did (not only that but dragging other nominees in his category up on stage with him who may not have believed what he believed). That was WAY out of line. And I hated him for it. But for me, that is a completely different thing.

[X. Benedict]

Yeah, somewhere there's someone saying "Dammit, we've been rejected by Pitt, too!  Is there no one out there who is willing to step forward and take a stand against cat juggling?!"

724532[/snapback]

Cat Juggling?!! Oh the Horror!

[ajzepp]

It's quite a jump to go from one throwaway line between songs, like the Chicks did, to a 15 minute PSA for the Republican Party. I suppose I would think that isn't kosher myself, that's a little overboard. But I have never heard of anything like that, except in political events like The No Nukes concert.

 

And there are certain times when it is okay to be pissed at political comments, IMO, when certain elements are involved. The Oscars, for example, are often a small soapbox for actors spewing their personal causes. I don't like when they do it at all, I would prefer them not to at this venue, and I may like one less for doing it, but it is their right to do it, and it doesn't denigrate, for me anyway, their perfromance in the film or their career.

 

However, a couple years ago, when Michael Moore was going to receive an Oscar for Bowling For Coulumbine, they pleaded with him before the show not to do it, he said he wouldn't, and then immediately did (not only that but dragging other nominees in his category up on stage with him who may not have believed what he believed). That was WAY out of line. And I hated him for it. But for me, that is a completely different thing.

724892[/snapback]

 

 

The Oscars is another good example....I hadn't even thought about that. I don't know what the Dixie Chicks do at their shows anymore, I just know that I've read several of their more recent commentaries on the merits of "patriotism" that really irked me. I think anyone who has decorated veterans in their family, or has served in the military themselves, would take issue with such a dismissive attitude about the topic. Patriotism is not the same as "hyper-nationalism", and there are no Imperialistic undertones. It's not a dirty word, for gosh sakes. To mock people for being patriotic when you have so many examples throughout history of people who have sacrificed to make this country as great as it is, I just think that's shameful. There are a lot of people in the celebrity world who need a reality check.

[IDBillzFan]

This is such a subjective topic that I can't believe people are trying to make general cases for one position or another.

 

I'm just glad I wasn't around when Hoover was going after Sinatra, or when Sinatra was banging Jaqueline Kennedy or getting John Kennedy some kitty on the side. I'm glad I wasn't smart enough to dig into why everyone was pissed about Cat Stevens and his comments about Rushdie's book. I always loved the music first.

 

The Dixie Chicks were simply a case of bad timing because, to me, they were nowhere near as stupid as Michael Moore yelling at the Academy Awards, but they're a country band and country bands are supposed to sing about love of god and country, and how we're proud to be an American, and at a time when everyone was trying to sort out their patriotic feelings, they did the one thing most American's felt was a bad idea at the time. They broke ranks. For Moore, it's his schtick: obese hairy muther!@#$er raging against the machine. For the Chicks, it was bad timing.

 

But every fan is different and every fan will react differently to the situation, not just based on what is being said, but even who is saying it.

 

Broad strokes be damned. You folks need to accept the fact that there is no one single position on this topic and just turn up the !@#$ing music.

[Dante]

Hardly understand a word anyone was saying. 

724662[/snapback]

And the movie was still awsome!

I thought the english accents, jargon and sayings(cant think of the proper word for that. I know there is one) really added to the charm of the movie.

[Taro T]

This isn't "service."  You are paying to see the artist.  That you expect one thing, but see something else doesn't mean you didn't get to see the artist peform.  What if the artist came out onto the stage and read his/her lyrics into the mike?  What if they didn't play the song you came to see?  The artist isn't required to conform to what you want.  Forcing him/her to shut up and play only their material is censorship.  If you only want to hear the songs, don't go.

724855[/snapback]

1st off, please show me where I said they can only play "only their material"?

 

2nd off, it IS a service that the performer provides. They are "entertainers". It really isn't often in their best interest to tick off people that paid them money to perform the "service" because ticked off people exercise THEIR free speech rights by not giving that performer any more of their money. Also, somebody complaining about what the entertainer did IS exercising THEIR right to free speech.

 

Show me any musical artist that tells the fans before the show, on the ticket, etc. exactly what songs they are going to perform (clearly a classical performance or a known play falls in this category, but the posters in this thread are arguing about musical groups).  I'm sure there are exceptions, but it's certainly not the norm.  What types of changes should they be allowed to make?  Is there some acceptable level of leeway that you would be okay with, before they crossed your line as to what is acceptable?

724855[/snapback]

Actually, a few years back Rush was advertising playing the entire 2112 album and Floyd was advertising playing The Dark Side of the Moon straight through, so it does happen.

 

As for your question, I would like to think that common sense would prevail. As a general rule, the entertainer probably should not go ticking off the audience, although I am certain that there are exceptions to that rule.

So it's okay for some artists but not others.  At what point in an artists carreer is it okay to cross your imaginary line of acceptability...the line where they don't have to do what you want?  We are talking free speech right? At what point do they earn the right to deviate from your expectations?

724855[/snapback]

Again, I would like to think that common sense could prevail here, but you will probably disagree on that.

I believe they made that statement at a show in London.  The outrage was from people who weren't even at the show.  So, according to your rules, an artist isn't allowed to excercize free speech even when you aren't even there.

They have the right to speak their mind, and you have the right not to go see it.

724855[/snapback]

Ah, so paid performers have rights to free speech, but the unpaid, unwashed masses DON'T have the right to free speech. That makes perfect sense.

Bingo.

We're talking about a sentence or two between songs. 

They absolutely have the right to say whatever they want from the stage as long as what they are saying isn't against the law.  It's free speech.  The fact that you paid money to see them doesn't eliminate that right.  It also doesn't give you the power to tell them what they can or can't do, or what will be acceptable to you.  It's political free seech.  The fact that you find it uncomfortable, or don't want to hear it doesn't mean they can't open their mouths between songs.  Stipulating what an artist can and can't say during a performance is censorship.

724855[/snapback]

Actually, if I so choose, I could tell them anything I want to tell them, and you could as well. (Although I am a bit surprised that I am arguing about a cruddy formerly country band that is now a cruddy crossover mainstream band.) Paid entertainers aren't the only ones with the right to free speech. Last time I checked, the general public has that same right to free speech.

[inkman]

...obese hairy muther!@#$er raging against the machine.

724901[/snapback]

 

 

I thought that was my gig...

[Kelly the Dog]

Another thing that needs to be said is that the Chick said this in England at a time when polls showed about 90% of the British public was solidly against the war. So exactly how are they pissing off their fans who paid to see them perfrom their music? It was only here in the states that some people got pissed off, and they only read about what the Chick said. And they just complained about WHAT the Chick said, not where they said it, at a concert that they didn't pay money to see. Again, if Natalie Maines said "We hate the French!" these people complaining would think the Chicks were Gods. So it wasn't that they said anything political, it was that the people didnt like the politics.

[Johnny Coli]

1st off, please show me where I said they can only play "only their material"?

 

2nd off, it IS a service that the performer provides.  They are "entertainers".  It really isn't often in their best interest to tick off people that paid them money to perform the "service" because ticked off people exercise THEIR free speech rights by not giving that performer any more of their money.  Also, somebody complaining about what the entertainer did IS exercising THEIR right to free speech.

 

Actually, a few years back Rush was advertising playing the entire 2112 album and Floyd was advertising playing The Dark Side of the Moon straight through, so it does happen. 

 

As for your question, I would like to think that common sense would prevail.  As a general rule, the entertainer probably should not go ticking off the audience, although I am certain that there are exceptions to that rule.

 

Again, I would like to think that common sense could prevail here, but you will probably disagree on that.

 

Ah, so paid performers have rights to free speech, but the unpaid, unwashed masses DON'T have the right to free speech.  That makes perfect sense. 

 

Actually, if I so choose, I could tell them anything I want to tell them, and you could as well.  (Although I am a bit surprised that I am arguing about a cruddy formerly country band that is now a cruddy crossover mainstream band.)  Paid entertainers aren't the only ones with the right to free speech.  Last time I checked, the general public has that same right to free speech.

724907[/snapback]

Jesus.

 

The performer has a right to say what he/she wants...free speech.

 

You have the right to leave, or just not go. If enough people choose to not go to the shows, there won't be any...ie voting with feet and/or wallet.

 

You do not have the right to dictate what a performer says, or does on stage, within the bounds of the law. It does not matter a damn bit if you are mad that someone on stage says Bush Sucks!, or if I get mad that someone on stage says Bush is God!. I would leave (probably after giving that person the finger), as you should if you were offended.

 

The only reason you even heard about what the Dixie Chicks said in London was because the Right Wing Media plastered it all over the news. The Dixie Chicks weren't forcing their views on you, and to suggest that artists should also take into consideration the views of people who aren't even at the event is frightening.

 

EDIT:

I see The Fabulous One so eloquently beat me to my last point.

Edited July 18, 2006 by Johnny Coli

[Dan Gross]

The only reason you even heard about what the Dixie Chicks said in London was because the Right Wing Media plastered it all over the news.  The Dixie Chicks weren't forcing their views on you, and to suggest that artists should also take into consideration the views of people who aren't even at the event is frightening.

724922[/snapback]

 

Well, you never know when a member of the London Philharmonic is going to come knocking at your door with a watermelon and a sledgehammer, so you need to nip these things in the bud...

[Taro T]

"Dance little monkey dance."

 

Where is the line in the fine print on the ticket that says "performer is guaranteed not to say anything you don't like...."?  Who is the person to judge what it is that a performer is allowed or not allowed to say on stage, and under what circumstances they are allowed or not allowed to say it?  Is it you?  Is it the person standing next to you?  Is a male performer not allowed to say "I love you all" because you're male and a homophobe? 

 

Did the Dixie Chicks not sing during their performance, instead spending their two hours on stage making a political protest?  Did I miss the part where no one allowed to boo or walk out during their "idiotic rant?"

 

That you seem to say that words have the same lasting power as watermelon stains on your best clothes says a lot...

724862[/snapback]

I would like to think a little common sense could be used here.

 

Someone not wanting to pay to hear a performer spout about their political views and stating such is not "censoring" the performer.

 

I apparently missed the part in the 1st Amendment where it says people complaining about an entertainer is infringing upon that entertainer's freedom of speech.

 

The DC's fans that no longer buy their records or go to their concerts have the right to do that. If the fans' aversion to what they say is strong enough to make them no longer like the music that they previously liked, that is their right as well.

 

The "incident" appears to have allowed the band to change their direction and, I would guess, their fan base as well. The new fan base they have probably wants to hear them say "I'm ashamed President Bush is from Texas", and that is fine.

[Taro T]

Well, you never know when a member of the London Philharmonic is going to come knocking at your door with a watermelon and a sledgehammer, so you need to nip these things in the bud...

724925[/snapback]

[Johnny Coli]

Well, you never know when a member of the London Philharmonic is going to come knocking at your door with a watermelon and a sledgehammer, so you need to nip these things in the bud...

724925[/snapback]

When they came for the triangle player, I did not speak, because I play the xylophone...

[cromagnum]

Another thing that needs to be said is that the Chick said this in England at a time when polls showed about 90% of the British public was solidly against the war. So exactly how are they pissing off their fans who paid to see them perfrom their music? It was only here in the states that some people got pissed off, and they only read about what the Chick said. And they just complained about WHAT the Chick said, not where they said it, at a concert that they didn't pay money to see. Again, if Natalie Maines said "We hate the French!" these people complaining would think the Chicks were Gods. So it wasn't that they said anything political, it was that the people didnt like the politics.

724915[/snapback]

A 60 second sentence in britain. Got forced down our throats in america for three years by the people who claim natalie was forcing her political views on america.