Fact check on debate - Boston Globe [ournewsa.blogspot.com]
Question by DoneWithThisPlace: What is the Appeal of Calling Yourself "Country"? There are people out there calling themselves "country" when they clearly are NOT. Taylor Swift is pop and many of these new acts are southern rock. Why do you think people want to call themselves "country" when they couldn't name five Hank Williams songs if you spotted them four but can recite every Lynyrd Skynyrd song backwards? What is the appeal of calling one's self a "country singer" instead labeling themselves what they truly are? Best answer for What is the Appeal of Calling Yourself "Country"?:
Answer by jasminetinge
If they play it on the country channel it's country. And besides country is the way you are not what you sing.
Answer by charlie
whos to say that they arent country...its certainly not our decision country is how u grow up not wat u sing and i belive that countyr comes from the heart not from the apearance i am srry if thats not what you wanted to hear but i felt i should answer acording to my feelings
Answer by blueheeler18
While I agree that a lot of the pop-cookie-cutter Country isn't TRULY Country, it's bringing people over to the genre. Johnny Cash was Rock 'n Roll when he started out.. NOBODY thought he was Country.
Answer by deb.peg1
Money.
Answer by L.i.s.a. H.
I think its because its the only genre that would take them. Most groups don't have what it takes to make it in rock, or pop, so they just call themselves "country" and people are ignorant enough to believe them. I know music evolves, and changes, but when it changes to the point that you can't even tell what it is anymore, thats a little too much change for me. I also don't get why people use legends names in their songs... its like by using a real country singers name they somehow think they're fooling us into believing they too are country. I'd be surprised if most "country" singers today knew the history of the genre at all. I know a lot of people who are into metal and know more about country singers then some of todays "country" fans do. Sad but true. And no, just because its played on country radio, doesn't make it country. I can make my own decisions on that, I don't need a radio station to tell me what to like. I myself will admit to knowing Lynyrd Skynrds music, but I know they are southern rock, and would scoff at the idea that they are country. But at the same time I also know Hank Williams, and that he IS country. I think its okay to like different types of music, just as long as you know the difference between them.
Answer by Me
I guess the appeal would be it unfortunately sells for some strange reason now, and most wouldn't have a chance of it making it on other charts.Something happened in the rock world where a lot of soft rock/cheesy bands stopped getting air play so they labeled it as country and boom millions were made.Some won't admit it, but it's all been down hill since Shania came on the scene.She opened the door for the crap you hear today.I even heard Jewell say before that if her first cd (and most successful) "Pieces Of You" came out today instead of 1995,it would be released as country music because it wouldn't have a chance anywhere else. What cracks me up- and I never noticed it until I seen someone else point it out, is if you browse todays country stars twitter pages etc,you will see a lot of them going on and on about how great the new Rihanna cd is, or how they just got back from seeing an amazing ColdPlay concert or how Jay Z is a genius.It's like they don't even PRETEND to like Country Music!
Answer by renegade
I am the first to admit that I am absolutley terrible at naming songs/artist's, so the fact that I couldn't name a Hank Williams song shouldn't be held against me. I could give a whole dissertation on how I came to love pure country music (Red Sovine), but I won't bore you with the details... Todays "country" is not where the roots go to... Back in the day, singers had live shows...what you saw/heard is what you got... Now we have "Executives" saying that Taylor Swift is Country, only to fit their own agenda (and make bookoo bucks)... Because technology has advanced to its present state, there is no longer a "true" music venue...be it country, rock, pop...whatever...EVERYTHING is "digitally enhanced" or worse (think Milli Vanilli). I LOVE to sing, yet am completely tone deaf, but by today's standards, I could actually be a star in todays market. Just my opinion from one who longs for the days of Red Sovine, Hank Williams, et al.
Answer by nomusiclikecountrymusic
It's thought to be "cool" to be "country" todya like it was "cool" to be "grunge" 10 years ago. Hey, for the person who said "who are you to decide" there's about 100 years of countyr music to listen to and base it on. Who are YOU to say those people who listened to that msuic for 100 years were all wrong and you only got "country" right since these new people came along?
Answer by gimpalomg
From the time Hank did "Mind Your Own Business", " Be Careful of Stones That You Throw" or my favorite, "Pictures From Life's Other Side" country has been going up town. Frankly I don't care for it like I used to. I have some old stuff on CDs, I guess there are enough of us to make it worth while for the producers. There's just a lot of country Cadillacs and wannabes out there. They spend money and what ever you want to call them, people like Taylor Swift, are cashing in on the craze. I like my country about like I like my movies. Black and white is good by me. There just aren't may color movies worth my time. Like the Statler's say, "True Grit" is the only movie I've understood in years. Cheers GIMP
Country Sh*t (Remix) (Director's Cut)Music video by Big KRIT performing Country Sh*t (Remix) (Director's Cut). (C) 2011 The Island Def Jam Music Group
It was hard to keep up with all the charges and countercharges in Monday night’s Senate debate at University of Massachusetts Lowell. US Senator Scott Brown and his Democratic challenger, Elizabeth Warren, often accused each other of misrepresentation, as they traded jabs on her legal work, his tax votes, and a host of other issues. Here, we take a look at the veracity of four of the competing claims.
ISSUE: Would the Buffett Rule fund the government for a day as Brown suggested?
When Warren criticized Brown for opposing the so-called Buffett Rule, a bill that would raise taxes on the wealthy, Brown defended his stance, saying: “The Buffett Rule â€" it funds the government for a day. It makes a great sound bite, but it funds the government for a day.â€
FACTS: True, but there’s more to the story.
The Buffett Rule, championed by billionaire investor Warren Buffett, would impose a 30 percent minimum tax on people with incomes over $ 1 million a year â€" guaranteeing that the rich pay the same tax rate as their secretaries.
It would raise about $ 5 billion in revenue annually, Âassuming Congress lets the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire. That’s enough to fuel the government for about 11 hours, according to a Washington Post analysis.
But that doesn’t mean the Buffett Rule is just a sound bite, as Brown suggests, ÂJoseph Rosenberg, a research associate at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, told the Globe on Tuesday.
“It’s not going to all of a sudden fix all the problems with federal fiscal policy but, at the same time, it’s hard to argue that it’s meaningless or completely inconsequential,†Rosenberg said. “There’s no single policy that is large relative to the size of the economy, or the size of the entire federal government, but any little bit makes a dent. What we really need is a bunch of little pieces to make up a comprehensive solution.â€
ISSUE: Did mine workers support Warren in the LTV Steel case?
Warren asserted that coal workers supported her when she represented LTV Steel, a former industrial conglomerate, in its fight against a congressional requirement that it pay millions of dollars into a fund for its retired coal Âminers’ health care.
“The coal workers have said I was on their side, not Senator Brown,†Warren said. “And he can’t change the facts.â€
FACTS: Warren’s assertion is misleading.
The mine workers union Âargued at the time that if companies like LTV Steel avoided paying into the fund, as Warren advocated, the fund could collapse, jeopardizing benefits for thousands of workers.
“No exception should be made to this act,’’ Richard Trumka, then president of the United Mine Workers, told a congressional panel in 1993. “When it unravels, you will have roughly 200,000 miners and beneficiaries out there that will lose their health care.’’
 Trumka is now president of the AFL-CIO, which has Âendorsed Warren. But Trumka has not disavowed his 1993 testimony. He now says Warren would be a better labor Âally than Brown in the Senate.
ISSUE: Did Brown march in lock step with Republicans to oppose President Obama’s jobs bills?
Warren blasted Brown for opposing Obama’s jobs bills, saying he “voted in lock step with every other ÂRepublican.†That prompted Brown to protest: “She’s obviously misstating the facts. These were rejections by both Democrats and Republicans.â€
FACTS: Both candidates are right, but Brown’s assertion is misleading.
Republicans, including Brown, did vote in lock step to block the bills, as Warren said. But his statement that there were “rejections by both Democrats and Republicans†could leave voters with the misleading impression that both parties came together to scuttle Obama’s jobs bills.
In fact, only a few Democrats crossed over to join the GOP in the votes.
On Oct. 20, 2011, for example, Brown and every other Senate Republican voted to block an Obama jobs bill that would have funneled $ 35 billion to the states for teachers, police officers, and firefighters, to be paid for by a surtax on the those earning more than $ 1 million annually. Just two Democrats â€" Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Mark Pryor of Arkansas â€" joined the GOP in that vote. On Nov. 3, 2011, Brown again joined every other Senate Republican to block one of the president’s jobs bills that would have spent about $ 50 billion on transportation and infrastructure projects, to be paid for by a surtax on the wealthy. Just one Democrat â€" Nelson â€" joined the GOP in that vote.
ISSUE: Did Brown vote 50 percent of the time with Senate Democrats?
In his closing statement, Brown sought to burnish his Âbipartisan credentials by asserting, “I’m 50 percent with my party, 50 percent with the other party.â€
FACTS: It depends on how you count the votes.
A Congressional Quarterly analysis found that Brown voted with the Republican leadership 54 percent of the time. But that calculation included dozens of amendments that had no chance of passing.
As the Globe reported in May, on the most important, news-generating votes since he arrived in office in early 2010, Brown joined Republican leaders 76 percent of the time, Âaccording to an analysis by Project Vote Smart, a nonpartisan organization.
But Brown repeatedly points to the Congressional Quarterly study to assert that he is a truly bipartisan senator; Democrats meanwhile hold up the Vote Smart study to assert that, on matters of consequence, he is a more reliable Republican vote.
Try BostonGlobe.com today and get two weeks FREE.Michael Levenson can be reached at mlevenson@globe.com. Follow him on Twitter @mlevenson.
Suggest Fact check on debate - Boston Globe Issues Country - Empire Of The Sun(c) Empire Of The Sun, 2008. Buy their new album.
0 comments:
Post a Comment