|
Post by sthdvs2012 on Jul 3, 2013 22:27:33 GMT -8
Whoever is in charge of promoting the Court Yard Hounds is FAR better than who Natalie Maines has. CYH will be airing a special for RAM Country, they're scheduled for 8 talk show appearances during the release week, they've actually sent their single to Country radio... and it is getting decent airtime.... ESPECIALLY in Canada, their team knows how to use social media properly.... and let's be honest.... their music is better. They're not alienating their fan base.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Jul 4, 2013 5:27:51 GMT -8
All of that's true. Natalie has a music account on Twitter - Maines Music - (presumably run by the label or management), but it doesn't show much activity. In referring to the Twitter accounts, she's said "both are real, but only one is fun". The fun one - her personal account - makes relatively little reference to her own music. She was fairly active when the album came out, but since then, she's largely confined herself to saying "thanks" when someone tweets that they like it. One interpretation would be that she wanted to put a toe in the water, but isn't strongly committed at this time to using it as a springboard to a new solo career. Only time will tell if that's the case - but I hope she doesn't take a fairly tepid reception for this album as a signal that it's not worth trying again. The Hounds have the advantage of it being their second album - they have the experience of doing largely their own promotion last time, and also the psychological boost of having received a generally warm reception in the more Alternative scene they're now focusing on. One point struck me a couple of days ago - Emily seemed to be talking down expectations about the Dixie Chicks. I've said before that the Canadian dates were potentially big for a possible return (and may have been seen by management as almost a last ditch push to stop the Chicks fading into "legend reunion" limbo). But a couple of days ago, Emily said something like "it's only two weekends with a couple of shows on each, in four cities". Others may disagree, but it seems to me they've made increasingly large strides into focusing on the present projects as being the active future. (By contrast, Natalie, although she seems to want to distance herself from the DC image, doesn't yet seem to see an active alternative path in music as a strong priority) In one of her two replies to me (yes, rather a surprise, lol) she said "I just want to be happy". Can't argue with that, and I wish her well!
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 4, 2013 6:00:18 GMT -8
Whoever is in charge of promoting the Court Yard Hounds is FAR better than who Natalie Maines has. CYH will be airing a special for RAM Country, they're scheduled for 8 talk show appearances during the release week, they've actually sent their single to Country radio... and it is getting decent airtime.... ESPECIALLY in Canada, their team knows how to use social media properly.... and let's be honest.... their music is better. They're not alienating their fan base. Hell no, they're not. Natalie blocked me from her twitter account, all I did was respond to one of her abortion/pro-choice/in the capital tweets. (why the bleep did she travel to Texas to protest that bill? She doesn't even live here and there are 13 other states that have the same laws! Why doesn't she go protest those states, eh? ) I'd love to actually meet that woman and tell her 'you're welcome' one day. . . . I can't stand that woman.
|
|
|
Post by sthdvs2012 on Jul 4, 2013 9:52:32 GMT -8
I was referring go the CYH not alienating their fan base. Natalie has been doing it since she joined Twitter.
|
|
|
Post by xxys000 on Jul 4, 2013 10:18:03 GMT -8
Whoever is in charge of promoting the Court Yard Hounds is FAR better than who Natalie Maines has. CYH will be airing a special for RAM Country, they're scheduled for 8 talk show appearances during the release week, they've actually sent their single to Country radio... and it is getting decent airtime.... ESPECIALLY in Canada, their team knows how to use social media properly.... and let's be honest.... their music is better. They're not alienating their fan base. Hell no, they're not. Natalie blocked me from her twitter account, all I did was respond to one of her abortion/pro-choice/in the capital tweets. (why the bleep did she travel to Texas to protest that bill? She doesn't even live here and there are 13 other states that have the same laws! Why doesn't she go protest those states, eh? ) I'd love to actually meet that woman and tell her 'you're welcome' one day. . . . I can't stand that woman. From what she said on twitter, it was actually a coincidence that she was in Texas when the protest was happening. I don't think she would have travelled there specifically for it. ....I love that woman
|
|
|
Post by debcat on Jul 4, 2013 11:28:59 GMT -8
For anyone to think Natalie standing up for women's health issues is a bad thing, I don't understand. I say BRAVO to Natalie and all the other women who speak up for the well being of what I consider the rights of women.
|
|
|
Post by xxys000 on Jul 4, 2013 12:10:36 GMT -8
For anyone to think Natalie standing up for women's health issues is a bad thing, I don't understand. I say BRAVO to Natalie and all the other women who speak up for the well being of what I consider the rights of women. Agree 100%
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 4, 2013 13:01:55 GMT -8
I was referring go the CYH not alienating their fan base. Natalie has been doing it since she joined Twitter. Yes, I know. She has. This is about the very least, basic respect for people to me. She doesn't have it. I can't listen to the DC stuff anymore because her voice has turned into nails on a chalkboard, makes me cringe.
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 4, 2013 13:04:33 GMT -8
For anyone to think Natalie standing up for women's health issues is a bad thing, I don't understand. I say BRAVO to Natalie and all the other women who speak up for the well being of what I consider the rights of women. Sure, speak up for whatever you think is right. Although if I hear one more argument that argues dictate your morals and principles on another person I'd love to know why murder, stealing, (the majority of laws) are considered crimes. Not killing someone and not stealing are moral issues. Let's just throw alll the moral issues off the books, see how quickly every thing turns into chaos. If morals shouldn't dictate laws, of course.
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Jul 4, 2013 13:09:15 GMT -8
I don't think it ever will be an issue that people will see eye to eye on.
The problem is that what some people see as primarily a heath issue, others will see as primarily an issue of allowing or terminating a human life - what some see as primarily an issue of the rights of adult and adolescent women to control their own bodies. others will see as primarily an issue of the rights of the very youngest girls and boys to have a body of their own - what some will see primarily as a matter of respecting one person's choice as a pregnant woman. others will see as primarily a matter of safeguarding another person who's unable to express a choice.
Given those differences - which in large part stem from varying perceptions of the point at which human personality can be assumed to begin (something which probably is, by its nature, incapable of absolute proof), the standpoints are probably irreconcilable.
If I've understood her tweets correctly, Natalie does not agree with abortion personally - she says she'd probably have the baby, even if the pregnancy resulted from rape - but she doesn't believe that she, or the state, have the right to impose that view on anyone else, and each woman should be legally empowered to make her own personal decision.
If I've got that right, it seems similar to the standpoint of people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who appear to have personal moral objections, but do not feel the state should impose solutions in such a morally and socially controversial area.
On Twitter and talk shows, Natalie can certainly seem abrupt, close-minded and prone to dismissive stereotyping - but on this particular issue, I'd give her credit for showing more forbearance and more awareness of the complexities than has been apparent in some of her opponents
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 4, 2013 13:12:57 GMT -8
I don't think it ever will be an issue that people will see eye to eye on. The problem is that what some people see as primarily a heath issue, others will see as primarily an issue of allowing or terminating a human life - what some see as primarily an issue of the rights of adult and adolescent women tp control their own bodies. others will see as primarily an issue of the rights of the very youngest girls and boys to have a body of their own - what some will see primarily as a matter of respecting one person's choice of a pregnant woman. others will see as primarily a matter of safeguarding another person who's unable to express a choice. Given those differences - which in large part stem from varying perceptions of the point at which human personality can be assumed to begin (something which probably is, by its nature, incapable of absolute proof), the standpoints are probably irreconcilable. If I've understood her tweets correctly, Natalie does not agree with abortion personally - she says she'd probably have the baby, even if the pregnancy resulted from rape - but she doesn't believe that she, or the state, have the right to impose that view on anyone else, and each woman should be legally empowered to make her own personal decision. If I've got that right, it seems similar to the standpoint of people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who appear to have personal moral objections, but do not feel the state should impose solutions in such a morally and socially controversial area. On Twitter and talk shows, Natalie can certainly seem abrupt, close-minded and prone to dismissive stereotyping - but on this particular issue, I'd give her credit for showing more forbearance and more awareness of the complexities than has been apparent in some of her opponents I read that she tweeted that if she was a teenager and pregnant she'd get an abortion. And that she doesn't see anything wrong with third trimester abortions. Which is ridiculous, because a child in the third trimester is viable outside the womb. I was born a month early, so pretty much if my Mom so choose, according to what these people think is allowable, I could've been killed. When does it stop?
|
|
|
Post by Bingo on Jul 4, 2013 13:51:17 GMT -8
Sad though it may seem, I think there is a real gulf in people's moral perceptions of abortion, as compared with murder and stealing.
With murder and stealing, there's an almost universal perception that they're morally wrong. Even people who commit them (give or take a much smaller number of mentally ill, sociopathic or ideologically inspired fanatics) still realize the moral implications. They're reinforced by long standing social taboos, and have been enshrined for millenia in legal codes and religious commandments, all over the world.
Whether we like it or not, that degree of agreement does not exist in the case of abortion - which remains much more morally contentious ground, with substantially less agreement. Even those - often relatively recent - legal codes which condemn abortion (and they have by no means been as universal) don't treat it on the same level as murder. Many health care workers who devote their lives to caring for patients still practice abortion. Others, of course, don't - but the level of agreement isn't absolute.
Given that, I don't see it as practical to assume that we can treat abortion as a settled, moral-only absolute. It's a controversial social issue, which divides people (As an example of the difference, any party that said it was going to generally legalize murder wouldn't get more than a handful of crank of error votes - whereas a party that says it broadly supports abortion rights can still get roughly half the votes) Rhetoric aside, abortion isn't generally seen in the same category as murder or stealing.
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 4, 2013 14:09:08 GMT -8
Sad though it may seem, I think there is a real gulf in people's moral perceptions of abortion, as compared with murder and stealing. With murder and stealing, there's an almost universal perception that they're morally wrong. Even people who commit them (give or take a much smaller number of mentally ill, sociopathic or ideologically inspired fanatics) still realize the moral implications. They're reinforced by long standing social taboos, and have been enshrined for millenia in legal codes and religious commandments, all over the world. Whether we like it or not, that degree of agreement does not exist in the case of abortion - which remains much more morally contentious ground, with substantially less agreement. Even those - often relatively recent - legal codes which condemn abortion (and they have by no means been as universal) don't treat it on the same level as murder. Many health care workers who devote their lives to caring for patients still practice abortion. Others, of course, don't - but the level of agreement isn't absolute. Given that, I don't see it as practical to assume that we can treat abortion as a settled, moral-only absolute. It's a controversial social issue, which divides people (As an example of the difference, any party that said it was going to generally legalize murder wouldn't get more than a handful of crank of error votes - whereas a party that says it broadly supports abortion rights can still get roughly half the votes) Rhetoric aside, abortion isn't generally seen in the same category as murder or stealing. Then I don't think it's correct to call it a moral issue. You're right, perspectives are vastly different. I wish every body could agree on one thing, and not insult the other person for feeling or thinking differently. Agree to disagree, something like that, and leave it at that. But women, seem to actually enjoy kicking each other. If I was a man, and if I said abortion shouldn't be legal, I wouldn't get as nearly as much flack. It'd be summed up with 'no uterus, no opinion.' but since I have one, and I think abortion shouldn't be legal, the verbal attacks are particularly more vicious. Case in point: Natalie's reaction. Way to go. Way.to.go.
|
|
|
Post by xxys000 on Jul 4, 2013 14:16:23 GMT -8
I don't think it ever will be an issue that people will see eye to eye on. The problem is that what some people see as primarily a heath issue, others will see as primarily an issue of allowing or terminating a human life - what some see as primarily an issue of the rights of adult and adolescent women tp control their own bodies. others will see as primarily an issue of the rights of the very youngest girls and boys to have a body of their own - what some will see primarily as a matter of respecting one person's choice of a pregnant woman. others will see as primarily a matter of safeguarding another person who's unable to express a choice. Given those differences - which in large part stem from varying perceptions of the point at which human personality can be assumed to begin (something which probably is, by its nature, incapable of absolute proof), the standpoints are probably irreconcilable. If I've understood her tweets correctly, Natalie does not agree with abortion personally - she says she'd probably have the baby, even if the pregnancy resulted from rape - but she doesn't believe that she, or the state, have the right to impose that view on anyone else, and each woman should be legally empowered to make her own personal decision. If I've got that right, it seems similar to the standpoint of people like Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, who appear to have personal moral objections, but do not feel the state should impose solutions in such a morally and socially controversial area. On Twitter and talk shows, Natalie can certainly seem abrupt, close-minded and prone to dismissive stereotyping - but on this particular issue, I'd give her credit for showing more forbearance and more awareness of the complexities than has been apparent in some of her opponents I read that she tweeted that if she was a teenager and pregnant she'd get an abortion. And that she doesn't see anything wrong with third trimester abortions. Which is ridiculous, because a child in the third trimester is viable outside the womb. I was born a month early, so pretty much if my Mom so choose, according to what these people think is allowable, I could've been killed. When does it stop? As far as I remember she agreed with abortions in the third trimester only when there is a threat to the mother's life. Edited...I found Nat's tweet about late term abortions, she said in response to @missionary2moms "yes, I agree with late term abortions to save a mother's life".
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 4, 2013 14:47:59 GMT -8
I read that she tweeted that if she was a teenager and pregnant she'd get an abortion. And that she doesn't see anything wrong with third trimester abortions. Which is ridiculous, because a child in the third trimester is viable outside the womb. I was born a month early, so pretty much if my Mom so choose, according to what these people think is allowable, I could've been killed. When does it stop? As far as I remember she agreed with abortions in the third trimester only when there is a threat to the mother's life. Edited...I found Nat's tweet about late term abortions, she said in response to @missionary2moms "yes, I agree with late term abortions to save a mother's life". Does that still make it okay to do? I would really like to know what kind of emergency situation that would result in having to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester. Unforeseen fetal problems? What would make that a necessity?
|
|
|
Post by xxys000 on Jul 5, 2013 5:24:48 GMT -8
As far as I remember she agreed with abortions in the third trimester only when there is a threat to the mother's life. Edited...I found Nat's tweet about late term abortions, she said in response to @missionary2moms "yes, I agree with late term abortions to save a mother's life". Does that still make it okay to do? I would really like to know what kind of emergency situation that would result in having to terminate a pregnancy in the third trimester. Unforeseen fetal problems? What would make that a necessity? I wasn't arguing whether it's right or wrong...I was just clarifying what Nat actually said. But to answer your question, if the life of the mother is at risk then I do think it's OK for her to have an abortion. I don't know what kind of medical situation might arise where the mother and her doctor would make that decision...but I'm sure they exist and occur.
|
|
|
Post by SandraC on Jul 13, 2013 6:49:10 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Jul 13, 2013 7:19:38 GMT -8
The 20th week ban is going to be a problem, because it leaves a tight window of decision by the time docs and technology -nowadays- can determine the birth health of a potentially ill fetus. Not to mention long travel to clinics for those who'll choose -or "need"- the abortion.
|
|
|
Post by BENJAMIN HAMILTON on Jul 13, 2013 13:11:59 GMT -8
LOL.. If I was Nancy, I would have reminded everyone to stay in topic and would have moved this discussion else where. LOL I remember several times she had to that. So, lets get back to discussing billboard numbers..
|
|
|
Post by b@@b on Jul 13, 2013 13:58:53 GMT -8
Ooops. But abortion, politics, religion, and gun rights are wild card topics here. You should know that Ben. Those ones will go wild. Lol ;D Oh, and Natalie-bashing.
|
|
|
Post by BENJAMIN HAMILTON on Aug 7, 2013 1:10:48 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by redbarron on Aug 7, 2013 16:41:24 GMT -8
I agree with sthdvs2012. I think the reason Natalie and the CYH haven't sold more is the simple fact people like the music/style of the Dixie Chicks and neither album is like that sound. I was really disappointed to hear the Hounds have "outgrown" the bluegrass sound, or however they put it. Their pop sound is not as exciting to me as their bluegrass/cowgirl/Chicks music. Oh well, I'll appreciate what they put out, may not like it as much, but...
|
|