CelticWomanForum.com

Note:  I have decided to remove this link.  I apologize for any distress this caused.  If you would like to read the article, please go to the New York Times Website. 

I do not agree with the writer of this article, who ironically is female. 

Thanks.

I cannot comment on this. I'm sorry, but calling the women 'sort of tarty' sets my teeth on edge. And comparing Mairead to a pole-dancer is...is quite beyond the pale.
I...I must compliment you on your remarkable self-restraint. You have...a natural gift for understatement...
As a man from fstdt.com said, 'Y'know, it's people like this and the fact that I can't kill them across the Internet that really drives home that whole 'no god' thing.'

Thanks, Willow. It is an interesting take on PBS. After that, I'm with Ferret Face's replacement. 'Cept for the long-distance violence. ;)

Sexy? In spades. But tarty? Please. The rest? I'm at a loss.

Invoking another PBS star: "Can you say 'projection', boys and girls?" Either that or jealousy.

Yes, I removed the link for a reason.  I think that there's a fine line between writing a negative review, or even being political in an article, and this New York Times columnist crossed it. 

As fans and friends of Celtic Woman, I know we are very protective, and this is good.  This article deserves to be responded to, which I plan on doing.  As a result of being in the public eye as prominently as Celtic Woman has been, there's always bound to be nay-sayers, and sarcasm (unfortunately).  I think it important that we know about what's being written or said about them, so that we can be even more supportive of these great musicians.

The sad part is that the actual concert in New York took place two months ago, and it's obvious that this columnist didn't go, let alone review the concert. 

Just my 2 cents.

Blessings,

Mary (willow)

Thank you for removing the link. I read that article when it came out, groaned, and consigned it to the round file.

I personally do not think that such negative articles should be posted here, for the same reason that this forum (commendably) does not allow users to post negative messages. These sorts of articles are out there for all the world to see, and can always by found by news searches, for people who are interested in such things. There is no need to give them extra publicity here, of all places, and they can only sour the mood of the board. And if someone wants to challenge the reporters' reviews, better that they write a letter to the editor of the newspaper in question.

I would still prefer that this forum be a place of appreciation, not antagonism. This is just my opinion.

Willow,

I have not read the article nor will I. 

I never read the NY Times as it has become litter box paper for me.

Between all of the problems they are having and their dropping circulation numbers, that is all that I need to know.  The US public has finally caught on to their negativity and I will not be one to support them.

Thanks for dropping their garbage article.

Tom

I generally read the NYT online. I found this article really upsetting and disturbing. It seems to be another case of "if you don't fit into my mold, you have no value." I was furious with the insinuation of "tartiness."

I know of no other musical act with the value of Celtic Woman. They are talented, gracious to audiences and fans, lovely and varied in style. Their music is like a deep breath where one has been gasping for air. Since I first saw them on PBS I feel like I can breathe again. There is beauty and peace in the world again. Nothing that a reporter writes can take that away.

Forever grateful for Celtic Woman

-Kit

I just finished reading the NY Times article too and felt like the writer wrote it with her very sharp claws, meow, meow, meow.  It had a rather catty feel to it.  There was absolutely no cause for "tardiness" and "poles" being mentioned.  I hope people who don't know "our ladies" didn't read the article and get the wrong idea.  CW is the classiest act I know of!

I read it and gagged.It was terrible.Nobody should have to read garbage like that.I hope none of the girls ever see it.

Thanks,Willow.

Well I haven't read it but from what you all are saying I won't!

It took some searching, but I managed to find the article. I respect others' decisions not to, but I wanted to read it to see if it really posed as a threat to the girls, and now that I have, I want very badly to write an email to the editor.

That was, by far, one of the strangest, and most offensive articles I've ever read! The woman goes back and forth between calling them "tarty" (to put it lightly) to saying that they harmonize well. I cannot believe the things she wrote about Méav and Mairead, especially.

What I'm curious about is who this writer was attempting to address with the article. Obviously not Celtic Woman fans...

I'll definitely be emailing the editor about this one. While we all have a right to our own opinions, there is a difference between tastefully saying you didn't care for something, and this humiliating article. I hope the girls never caught wind of this one.

Willow, it was a good call to remove the link. Be assured that I am not getting myself worked up over this. It, of course, has absolutely no effect on my love of Celtic Woman! I just want to let the editor know that there is a much more civil way of expressing dislike for something/someone.

Go Katie! ;D

i just had to laugh when i read it :D it was so miserable an attitude to the group

The Salt Lake City article was the same thing! Same words and everything!

That writer must have been smoking Dulaman.

I think these reviews show an extreme lack of education on the part of the reviewers. They really don't understand the complexities of Irish culture or history. Celtic Woman does a great job of integrating the past and the present.

-Kit

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA :D :D :D

This is a comment that I wrote to in regards to the article that the Salt Lake City newspaper wrote on CW.  It was the same article that the NY Times did. 


I hope you know that what you wrote on Celtic Woman was highly offensive to me and some of the other Celtic Woman fans! The words you used were not very kind. Celtic Woman is a wonderful group of ladies that have class and they are not "tarty" in anyway. I did not like the way you said that "All she needs for her new career is a pole" to describe Mairead! Making fun of these Girls is something that is not tolerated as fans! These Girls deserve nothing but Praise for what they do and not someone who is going to degrade them like you have.

good stuff

While perfectly acceptable to us CW fans, your arguments may have to be a bit more persuasive if you wish to win over more people.
Having said that, I do admire your tenacity in actually e-mailing the NYT. :)

My sentiments exactly...

I think I'm going to shoot an email towards them this weekend. However, my plan is not to force them to enjoy CW, as everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I merely want them to realize that there is a much more civilized, non-humiliating way of expressing dislike towards someone/something than making blatant personal attacks. Is that a fair argument? I'll post my letter on here before I send it.

And kudos to you, Celticfan06, for actually sending one!!

Katie,

I applaud CF06 for sending an e-mail but I also agree with you that the writer has every right to not "get" CW or even strongly dislike them. This lady gets paid to write her opinions and she doesn't like them. I served my country for six years to protect her right to say that. If she finds their music boring, fine. Many do. And if she believes the ladies get by on their looks, fine.

But her way of saying the latter was utterly misrepresentative of the women and the show. While the CWs are certainly sexy and sometimes playfully flirty (How do you think half the guys on this forum got here?), they are light years removed from the vulgarity and cheapness the writer implied. If anything, their stage images could be seen as representations of idealized beauty and unattainability! Even the writer who called them Stepford women had enough sense to discern that.

In a lazy attempt to be witty and picturesque (two things most writers desperately want to be) she went for the no-effort, lowball universal image of the pole dancer. And missed her mark by a mile. Wit requires actually hitting the nail on the head with just the right words. She did neither.

I admire both of you for sending letters to the NYT.

Please remember that the NYT is a very liberal news paper and their agenda is to tear down anything of value.  I suspect that is most likely why they wrote and hit piece on CW.  They have more retractions with their articles than any other paper that I'm aware of and sadly to say most of the print media in the US follows their lead.

I look forward to reading what develops.

Thanks,


Tom

Johnny, I know all too well about wanting to achieve a certain level of witty humor in writing! And I completely agree that the writer of this article displayed no such characteristics.

My one question, though: Who was the writer trying to appeal to with this article?

Oh, that's the easy bit: People who are predisposed to ridiculing anything that lacks irony, cynicism, or nihilism. People who call sincerity, positivity, and optimism "cheesy." In a phrase, the stereotyped image of a New Yorker.

The story is a bit two-headed. She wants to imply an expose (PBS puppetry yields prefabricated show) while alternating it with florid prose about how sickeningly-sweet-yet-crassly-sexual it all is. All this Penn and Teller-ish debunking appeals to cynics big-time.

Now who is stereotyping?  ;) I think these people need what Celtic Woman sings about. It is a shame that they can't get past their own prejudices.

Remember it is easier to tear down than to build up. I really feel sorry for these woman. They appear to be bitter and angry.

-Kit

That's what I meant. She thinks that's her audience.

 (How do you think half the guys on this forum got here?),

    Believe it or not, a lot of the men like the good clean healthy way the ladies do their show.  We also love their voices, and the talent they display.   Yes the ladies are very attractive, but men can also see the honesty they project.  And like I have previously posted " If I were to put togather a catalog of the kind women I would want my grandsons to find. The only pictures would be the ladies of Celtic Woman.  For they show intelligence, beauity, gentleness, grace, charm and class."

JIM

Well, I did say HALF the guys!  ;D  As you said, "The ladies are very attractive, but men can also see the honesty they project." It's that ALSO that I was referring to. There's nothing wrong with being impressed by both.

I admire their wholesome show, too. That was the entire point of my problem with this writer making it sound otherwise.

How come the Salt Lake Tribune didn't have one of their own staff write about Celtic Woman, and what possessed them to use the New York Times article?  They did attribute it to the same columnist (and I use the term loosely) and cited the New York Times, so it's not plagiarism.

I don't read newspapers regularly, and this is a large part of why I don't.  Is this standard practice in the Newspaper industry?

I know most of these questions are somewhat hypothetical, but I had to ask.

Because Salt Lake City newspaper is lazy and they thought that they could post it! Well, that is so not cool! They thought they were posting something worthwhile when in fact they didn't!

The newspaper business is in rough times. There are fewer papers and the ones that are still around can't affor as many writers on staff. More and more of what they print is wire service material and syndicated columns like that one. The smaller the market, the truer this is.

The Salt Lake paper had to pay to run this article (unless it's owned by the NYT - they own scores of them).

I read it and was disgusted at the pole remark too. But I ONLY read it because it was about Celtic Woman..I hate the NYTimes, and so do many  who no longer subscribe.
The short time I've been a fan (since discovering them), I have found them to be the absolute classiest ladies and professionals in existence, not to mention they can sorta sing, too... ;D

They do seem to have a knack for that, huh?  ;)

Sorry I didnt read this when it was first posted. Some good points raised here for discussion.

1. I agree that the attractiveness plays a role, but is not dispositive, in the success of CW. For example, that 'fateful' day as I channel surfed onto the ANJ pledge drive special, it was Lisa I first noticed who lured me initially in. I was like "whoa whose that?!" Lisa does have a sort of radiance about her.  But it was Hayley's voice that hooked me. Sounds cliche maybe, but it goes right to the soul. And as for Mairead, she has unique ability that isnt duplicated. I have never thought of what she does as even close to pole dancing. Thats a real stretch. Maybe I am getting old, I dont know.

2. Some have made comments about the print media, but I think this issue encompuses the overall status of media today. They need ratings. Thats one thing I have said to others about Ann Coulter. Does she really believe the stuff she says, or is she casting a sort of role. Sort of like those 'rasslers on cable tv, on Monday Night Raw or Smackdown. Its a public character to project. I remember one night Bill O'Reilly interveiwed Coulter and was even critical, and Ann responded with something like "There have been thousands of well educated experts who have said what I say but only sell a dozen books, I have sold hundreds of thousands" Bill responded "No question you have a strong following" I even taped this, and it really just stuck in my mind. So it seems the writer of this article purposely did this in order to get all this attention.

3. Because of that, maybe it is better that the writer be ignored. I can see the argument for that. I also can understand the forum banning negative things about the ladies, because fights over that stuff can lead to big trouble with forum members. One objective here seems to keep a peace and harmony going and avoid trouble, thus to quickly remove anything negative that could cause tension. I have seen even little minor things erupt into major trouble on other web groups, so there is a lot of logic that makes sense here.
At the same time, you cant just stick your head in the sand either. Bad things dont go away if they are ignored or appeased. So by having it brought up on the forum, to let us know, but to not promote it further by leaving it posted, is perhaps the right way to go. However, I do intend to find this and read it. I feel a bit uncomfortable responding to it before reading it, but I also have enough confidence from what I have read from you all to make the statments I have. However, I would never respond further, say outside the forum or contact the NYTs, unless I read it personally. thats where it would be good if the link was left on the forum. Quick and easy for forum members to find it and read.

They want paid for it. No way I am gonna do that. Does anyone have a link to it? I know you may not want to post in the forum, but you could PM it to me. If not, I will try to go do some library research. Shouldnt take too long to find the NYT at the public library.

Thanks.

Cash,I have the link.If you really want to read it,pm me.

After reading the first few posts in this thread.. myself, there's no way I'd want to read this article ::)

I googled CW and found and read the review.  I think the writer is typical of many current media/news people: ignorant and lazy.  Typical of the NYT.   

It's times like these when I hate the fact that I'm naturally curious. I found the article online and was more disgusted than anything else. I could understand if the writer was critiquing the music, some people just don't like the kind of music Celtic Woman sings and I respect that. But to say the things the writer said? That's just low. One of the many reasons I don't like the media today.