Recently, I have been working on a project with a singer who hired me to mix his band’s live performances. He was complaining to me that I had become too aggressive in regard to the ideas I was presenting. What he was protesting was the fact that it was his project and his songs, and I was disregarding his mixing ideas in favor of my own. He reminded me that he had hired me to help him because he liked my ideas and my creative input, but ultimately it was his project and his vision to which he had to adhere, regardless of what I, or anyone else, might think. Since he was the person footing the bill, he was in his right to expect the final say, but being a bit of an “artiste” myself, the situation ignited my feverish imagination in regard to our business and the creative process.
By definition, an artist must be free thinking, someone who is able to pick ideas and concepts out of the air and put them into a format that others may see, hear and appreciate. Censoring or altering the artist’s ideas limits his creativity and changes the vision of the work to conform with someone else’s idea of the vision. Categorizing an artist’s work is a necessary marketing tool, but unfortunately it’s a contrivance that can restrict the artist’s creative flow. Though an artist might be brilliant, his genius may never be recognized because of his inability to fit into a format that can be presented to the general public.
Radio presents itself as one of the main avenues of exposure to any performing artist. Good exposure and acceptance at the radio format enables an artist to develop a following and a career at the recording and concert levels, which then translates into cash. Except for a few exceptions in the business, the bands without a decent amount of radio play and exposure often come to a standstill, and their careers are as limited as their cash flow. A company such as Clear Channel, which owns not only 1,200 stations nationwide, but most of the large venues and booking companies as well, finds itself in a very powerful position in regard to what reaches the ears of the American people. Therefore I find it to be a dangerous proposition if we, the people, accept Clear Channel’s decision to banish the Dixie Chicks from the airwaves.
As Americans, we are guaranteed by our constitution the right to free speech and the right to dissent. Our forefathers wrote the constitution to ensure that “We the people” have a voice, and are able to have a dialogue with our leaders who are elected “Of the people, by the people and for the people.” Natalie Maines’ comment that she’s ashamed to be from the same state as President Bush is neither treasonous or overly provocative. If anything, it might be considered in poor taste, but poor taste seems to be a mainstay of most radio and television programming these days and should not constitute a banishment from the airwaves. Clear Channel, if they so needed to respond, could have issued a statement saying that the views expressed by the Dixie Chicks were not the views of the company, and while the stations believed in the right to free speech, they took issue with what was said.
As we have all discovered, music is a powerful means of conveying a message, whether it is a message of hope, angst, betrayal, loyalty, love, patriotism, nationalism, rebellion or commercialism. Music helps deliver the word and with its acceptance, gives its creators a voice. Since the 1950s folk and popular music have been instrumental (no pun intended) in presenting us with alternatives to mainstream sensibilities. From Elvis and Chuck Berry to the Beatles and The Stones, Woody Guthry and Pete Seeger to Bob Dylan and Jimmy Hendrix, from Zeppelin to The Clash, music has been educational and pivotal in shaping the thinking and actions of devoted listeners. The artist’s point of view shapes the art and gives it meaning. The art, as well as the artist’s perceptions, are subjective by nature and, as in any expression, there is no right or wrong, only a viewpoint.
Should any individual disagree with the political views that the Dixie Chicks express, then he has the right to boycott the group by not going to the band’s shows or purchasing their records. Clear Channel, though, is one of the most powerful entertainment companies in the world, and removing the Dixie Chicks, or any other band, from their playlist for voicing a political opinion sends a very strong and disturbing message to the musical community which seems more like censorship on par with the McCarthy hearings during the 1950s.
The past few years have been emotionally and physically trying for all Americans, but let us remember that many of the same artists who have recently voiced their dissent towards our leadership are the same ones who showed their solidarity by donating their time and efforts to the many benefit concerts in the aftermath of 9/11. In this time of great change and emotional duress we should all be quite certain that we don’t lose sight of the original tenets that have made America great and to remember that, unlike the despotic band leader who hired me to fulfill his creative vision, America is our collective work in progress, and we are all co-creators. We have to be careful not to lose touch with these distinctive values that make our nation stand out among others, because if we do, we may all wake up one day to find that we have no music to mix except John Philip Sousa marching bands.