If the measure of good music is not in the volume of direct sales (in CD or online) but in the good opinion of a few elite musical critics, then what can actually be said about the music itself? According to the standard of the latter, there is a sharp disconnect between the music and the people it’s supposed to entertain.

We all know that music is enjoyed subjectively and that aesthetics is no longer measured in terms of harmony and melody and so on. Since the only measure of “good music” nowadays is the subjective tastes of musical aristocrats, perhaps the Grammy’s are more irrelevant than previously thought.

I submit to you that popular music cannot be divorced from the people who listen to them. IF it was, then it would be as irrelevant as modern discordant “art music”, which prides itself on being separate from “the masses”, and which can’t even draw the barest of crowds, much less pay for itself without patronage.

This is not where the Dixie Chicks are at, since they are selling millions of copies of their music. But this is where your reasoning goes.

The Dixie Chicks won 8 Grammies before the Bush incident and so far they have won 5 Grammies after. The Dixie Chicks latest album is by many music critics opinion is their best yet. They won 13 Grammies because they make great music. If anything the blackballing of the Dixie Chicks from the County Music Awards was the only awards show that was politically motivated.

Yellojkt, I’m actually surprised they filled the entire Verizon Center considering they got little-to-no air play on the country radio circuit. If they’ve been played on top 40 stations, I’m largely unaware of it.

Even though I disagree with their politics in general, it would seem that their controversial statements directly led to their popularity. At least for now, their controversy has been an incredible career boost, even if not many people are talking about their music.

I think the reason was to point out how stupid Country radio has been by not play the Dixie Chicks music.