Monday, February 12, 2007

Dixie Chick..Clueless to Grammy process?

The controversial Dixie Chick mouthpiece, Natalia Maines, appears to be clueless as to how the Grammy aware winners are selected. In an AP story by David Bauder titled "Dixie Chicks to Country: Nah-Nah", Natalie is quoted as saying:





"I think people are using their freedom of speech here tonight with all of these awards. We get the message," singer Natalie Maines said after winning the fifth Grammy, album of the year for "Taking the Long Way Home."


Hope this isn't an example of her intellectual research on the ways of the world. The Grammy voting is limited to music industry insiders only, and not a stamp of approval by the masses, as she evidently believes. Members must pass muster for credentials before being allowed into the exclusive club. I was, at one point in my past briefly, one of those members.

The single true indicator of public approval is product sales. And even that is only a commentary on the music, not the citizen. If Ms. Maines is seeking redemption/satisfaction that she has been "forgiven", this isn't it. Instead she should learn to take her lumps as they come with grace, and cease whining as a defiant victim. Free speech doesn't make you immune to criticism.

(Mata Note:... thanks to poster Steve for catching my previous grammarical error using "entitled" instead of "titled", and pointing it out so graciously.... uh huh. Then again, Steve has his own spelling problems on his website himself... it's *speech*, not "speach", Steve! Happy to return the favor.)

_______________________________

UPDATE 2-13-2007

Poster Steve suggests that perhaps Ms. Maines was only referring to the NARAS voting membership, as she did not mention "the masses" specifically in her comment "using their free speech". Oh lawdy... here we go with the parsing of words stuff, again. sigh

Tisn't such a leap of an assumption, Steve. By her words and delivery, Ms. Maines obviously felt receiving these awards was a form of vindication for the negative press she's received. Rather a silly notion if you realize it's only a majority of 16,000-20,000 possible votes, spread out over many honorees. Not exactly a huge representation of the US population.

Therefore, either she's easily silly enough have a huge sense of redemption and "get the message" from a few elite industry insiders. Or she genuinely believes that the public has a say in the Grammy winners. Silly? Or clueless to the process? I think I gave her the benefit of the doubt by the latter.


4 comments:

Steve said...

Speaking of clueless, your link reads the article is "entitled". What is it "entitled" to? The word you meant is simply "titled."

Maybe Natalie was refering to Grammy voters. She didn't mention "the masses."

TrekMedic251 said...

More pointless cheap shots at the Bush Administration.

The Demo-Socialists have finally come to realize that time doesn't go backwards, they can't have a do-over for 2000 and 2004.

So,...instead, they triumph ANYTHING anti-Bush or anti-American just to "stick it to him!"

Same thing with the Oscars: Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima were companion pieces on the same subject. Both were gut-wrenching and excellent, IMN-SHO.

Which was festooned with Oscar nominations? Oh, yeah, the one that DOESN'T show the US winning a war that started with a sneak attack!

How f**king juvenile!

Alia said...

LOL! Oh My Goodness. Dear, dear Natalie. lol

MataHarley said...

Correct, Steve. I made a grammarical error there and thank you for pointing that out. Rather than clueless, it was a "senior moment" at the keyboard. LOL

I caught the video of Natalie's "free speech" comment. She was not referring to the freedom of speech for the Grammy membership to vote... who have that "freedom" (if you can call it that) every year. However if is a quiet nod of acknowledgement that most of the time, the Grammy award winners are also chart toppers, and that sales often are linked to the winning position.

You are obviously a Chick fan. I think they are very talented myself. I consider them to exercise poor judgement in their rhetoric and choice of venues for such, however still like their music.

Feel the same way about actors with whom I disagree. I may watch their movies, but I don't have to like their choice to merely express hatred for our country's leader with no other constructive imput. The reason for that would be?? If I were in the audience, I'm there to hear music. Not what and who she likes or dislikes. It is inappropriate.