Shut Up & Sing

Continuing my recent series of posts on interesting music DVDs, the other night I watched the Dixie Chicks film ‘Shut Up & Sing: Freedom of speech is fine provided you don’t do it in public’ – a 2006 documentary, released in June 2007 in Australia. The film covers a three year span in the band's career and examines the events surrounding political statements made by the band's lead singer Natalie Maines with respect to the war in Iraq.

In 2003, as the war was commencing, Natalie stated during a live concert in London that the band were opposed to the war and that she was “ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas”. These comments sparked an extremely negative reaction from some country music fans, the majority of which were very strong Bush supporters. The backlash included protesters outside their concerts, the burning and destruction of CDs and merchandise, a ban by some radio stations, significant loss of CD sales and even a death threat to Maines. Despite issuing a statement clarifying the comments and openly supporting the troops serving in Iraq, the issue was quickly sensationalised by the media and snowballed beyond the control of the band.

Whilst not the genre of music I would normally listen to, I found this film illustrated some very important points with respect to free speech and the music industry.

The statement itself, which appears to have been unplanned, was nonetheless an expression of the signer’s political views. Clearly shocked at the negative reaction, they firstly tried to qualify the comments. As time went on however, they became determined to highlight the way a sector of the media and the general public were attempting to censor their views.

At a concert soon after the event, the band, in acknowledging the importance of free speech, allowed concert goers an opportunity to boo openly if they felt the need to express their lack of support for the singer’s comments. Interestingly enough there was well voiced support for the band instead of booing, but nonetheless, their relationship with many fans was significantly strained. The band closed their websites and chat rooms following the incident, which in itself could be seen as a form of censorship however other sites including FreeRepublic.com provided adequate opportunity for those concerned to express their views. In fact, it is suggested in the film that members of FreeRepublic were instrumental in organising the boycott and movement against the band.

There was obvious concern both from their sponsor, Lipton, and record label, Sony. Lipton were the sponsors of their tour at that time and whilst still wishing to be associated with the band, were so concerned about the situation that they provided support in the form of a public relations consultant to help the band mediate the conflict. Maines states that Sony were obviously concerned about music sales because in the past the band had been something of a ‘cash cow’ and this had been put at risk. To their credit the Dixie Chicks did not succumb to this pressure even discussing the possibility of voluntarily allowing Lipton to end their sponsorship arrangements. Similarly, the follow up album and single recorded by the band contained a number of tracks reflecting on these events and the importance of free speech.

The part of the film which really brought home the issue of censorship for me was the response of many of the country music radio stations. At the time that these comments were made the band was heavily dependent on this sector of radio to help publicise their music and drive CD sales. Following Maines comment some listeners contacted these radio stations when their songs were played, complaining and stating that they would never listen to that station again if they continued to play their music. This resulted in a number of stations boycotting the band altogether.

Their manager, Simon Renshaw, testified before the 2003 hearings of the US Senate Committee for Commerce, Science and Transportation which considered the concentration of media ownership (particularly radio) in the United States. The film highlights a series of exchanges between Renshaw, Lewis Dickey – CEO and President of Cumulus Broadcasting, the chairman of the committee Senator John McCain (current Republican Presidential Nominee), Senator Barbara Boxer and Senator Gordon Smith.

Renshaw describes the decision of the country music radio stations to ban all air play of the Dixie Chicks as a form of censorship exercised to silence the political views of the artists. Of particular interest is the way the decision not to play their music was made by the radio networks. Dickey disputed the characterisation of Cumulus Broadcasting as a radio network, describing the decision of the 270 radio stations in 55 States to boycott the band, as a unanimous, collaborative decision. McCain did not accept this, suggesting that it was a decision made from the corporation’s headquarters which was binding on the DJs employed by the stations in the Cumulus group. Other radio networks also banned the playing of the band’s music.

The discussion considers the right of a radio stations to select the music it plays, particularly when an artist is politically active. Senator Gordon Smith noted that politics can have ‘business consequences’ for artists and that many have realised that these consequences may be negative.

I think it is natural to expect some fans will disagree with artists that speak out on political issues, however these events suggest much more took place than simply individual radio stations responding to listener’s concerns. As McCain notes, the decision not to play the band’s music was not made by individual DJs rather it was imposed as a blanket policy. One may also question the number of listeners who did not call up and complain but either agreed with the statement or would have preferred to listen to the band’s music regardless. Reports concerning another radio station suggest that two DJs who decided to defy a ban by locking themselves in the studio, taking listener requests and playing the band's music in a Dixie Chicks marathon, were suspended by the station’s General Manager.

Problems associated with a concentration of media ownership in the United States are well illustrated by this film. The direct conflict between the political views of a very popular band and the conservative views of the station owners that had supported their music in the past and some vocal members of public, provide an unparalleled illustration of the potential for monopoly ownership to determine the content of material the wider public is exposed to. Without a diversity of media outlets who are able to make independent decisions, music of a political nature and musicians who are willing to lend themselves to promote or support certain issues, are silenced by the commercial interests of a handful of powerful corporations. To some extent the increasing use and accessibility of the internet to average citizens has helped to overcome some of these issues, but nonetheless, at present, terrestrial radio remains the most important vehicle for hearing new music.

The concentration of media ownership is not limited to radio networks but operates throughout the content industry, including television and the print media (see for example the documentary Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism.) In the music industry the major labels are also often seen to contribute to this form of censorship by selecting acts that appeal to the widest possible sector of the public to ensure greater commercial success. This typically marginalises artists with views that may not be so readily accepted by the mainstream.

If music is to provide social commentary and to contribute to the progress of society, there must be the infrastructure in place to ensure that the political views of a small but powerful minority do not influence the content of the works that are produced and made accessible to the public. The best way to ensure this takes place is to decentralise power through ensuring a diversity of media ownership and sources. This includes business models that will sustain independent artists, decentralised distribution networks and network neutrality.

In this example it appears that there is a happy ending. Since the time this statement was initially made, public support in the USA for the war has changed dramatically and in 2007 the band collected five Grammy Awards including Record of the Year, Song of the Year and Best Country Album. However this should not detract from the many artists that continue to be marginalised by the commercial interests of the labels and other mainstream media. As a society there needs to be greater attention to the potential for bias and a concerted effort to enable a variety of artists to succeed and be supported in their craft.

Articles:
Wikipedia, Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing (8 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dixie_Chicks:_Shut_Up_and_Sing> at 10 April 2008

Wikipedia, FreeRepublic.com (10 April 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Republic> at 10 April 2008

Wikipedia, Natalie Maines (25 March 2008)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natalie_Maines> at 10 April 2008

Democracy Now, Shut Up and Sing: Dixie Chick’s Big Grammy Win Caps Comeback From Backlash Over Anti-War Stance (15 February 2007) <http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/15/shut_up_and_sing_dixie_chicks > at 10 April 2008

World Socialist Web Site, Colorado disc jockeys suspended for protesting Dixie Chicks’ ban (9 May 2003) <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/may2003/dixi-m09.shtml> at 10 April 2008

NBC6, Radio Jocks Suspended for Playing Dixie Chicks (7 May 2003) <http://www.nbc6.net/entertainment/2185232/detail.html> at 10 April 2008

Wikipedia, Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch’s War on Journalism (30 March 2008) <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outfoxed> at 10 April 2008