I'm seeing
this at Deadline Hollywood:
I hear the show’s producers will be meeting with Disney-ABC executives on Monday to pitch a revamped Roseanne without the title star (and likely the original title too)....
Details about the concept that will be pitched are unclear but the show is expected to stay true to the praised first season of the revival — the series’ 11th overall — featuring the other cast members except Barr. There could be stronger emphasis on Sara Gilbert’s character Darlene, which can be expected since the revival was centered mainly on three characters, Roseanne (Barr), Dan (John Goodman) and their daughter Darlene (Gilbert) who moved back home with her kids.
As we previously reported, executive producers Tom Werner, who also executive produced the original series, and Gilbert, the main driving force behind the revival, are believed to be spearheading the efforts to continue the show and keep the writers, led by executive producer/showrunner Bruce Helford, and crew employed post-cancellation.
I said
this when I first heard about the cancelation:
I feel sorry for Sara Gilbert:
Gilbert, who played Darlene on "Roseanne" and had been largely credited with spearheading the relaunch of the sitcom, tweeted that Barr's statements "do not reflect the beliefs of our cast and crew or anyone associated with our show."
"I am disappointed in her actions to say the least," Gilbert continued. "This is incredibly sad and difficult for all of us, as we’ve created a show that we believe in, are proud of, and that audiences love -- one that is separate and apart from the opinions and words of one cast member."
I'll say what Gilbert is not saying: She just got her good work and her rising career shot to hell.
ADDED: "Darlene Is the Best Reason to Watch the New Rosanne."
And
this the next morning:
I'm skeptical. Did ABC really cancel "Roseanne," or are we sucked into high-drama theater with more scenes to come? Is this like the Donald Trump and Kim Jong-Un show, where it's on, then it's off, then it's on?...
Before the reboot, the series had ended with Roseanne's husband dead. So come back with Roseanne dead. Was she really the without-which-none of the show? She's a bad actor compared to the others. John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are at the complete opposite end of the scale — great actors. Sara Gilbert ("Darlene") seems to have been the brains of the reboot. She could become the central character. Build the new season around John Goodman, Laurie Metcalfe, and Sara Gilbert, and leave the dead weight of Roseanne behind.
But in the comments, daskol waxed pessimistic:
Great actors are moons and need a planet. Great TV writers too, and even clever Sara Gilbert is merely a moon without a planet. Roseanne is a planet.
Posts
105 comments:
It's been done before. There was a show called "Valerie" centered around actress Valerie Harper. After 2 seasons she held out for more money. The network continued without her, initially as "Valerie's Famimy" and then as "The Hogans". It ran for 3 additional seasons. Sandy Duncan was brought in as the husband's sister and it was worked into the plot that Valerie Harper's character died in a car crash.
Roseanne, erased. Never mind-crime against the church of the holy progressive.
Tom Werner is involved? Non zero chance they're considering Bill Cosby as the new Roseanne. I smell comeback!
What CNN will do to you.
Roseann is Uranus.
Roseanne-less
Maybe the first episode will have a Twitter rage plot...incorporating guest actor Samantha Bee.
daskol is right.
If ABC is smart, here is the conclusion they will arrive at:
Let's say "The Connors" (for lack of a better name) is green-lighted. The show will not pick up _any_ new viewers net, because the handful of people who might tune in now will be vastly outnumbered by the viewers who did watch before, but will not watch in the future a Roseanne-less "Connors" show.
So you cut the ad revenue in half, basically. BUT you still have to pay all those well-paid ensemble actors. Conclusion: ABC should pass on this idea.
Like Irish whisky and rock candy without the Irish whisky.
I don't watch TV. So TV execs who are reading this, take no mind of my comment.
I think the idea could work, and it might be interesting TV. But if the characters suddenly become the shining example of Hollywood Liberal Mindset, it won't last long.
I wonder who owns the name of the series. Might be an interesting IP case.
The easy solution would have been to keep both the show and Roseanne, but that would have required courage, instead there was panic, or maybe glee, and a stampede to conformity.
They could bring back the show and just have Roseanne enter prog reeducation camp for some reason. Problem solved.
TV. Who needs it?
"the characters suddenly become the shining example of Hollywood Liberal Mindset"
Let's see..with Wanda Sykes as a writer...
What I would like to see, but won't: All the other cast members put out a statement that says: Roseanne said an awful thing and apologized. We will not do the show without her.
What ever happened to loyalty?
The list of secondary characters having a successful series developed for them is basically one - “Frasier” for Kelsey Grammer.
The only loyalty progressives accept is loyalty to the The Party.
ABC is arm of The Party. Roseanne sinned against The Party. The Church.
There is no forgiveness.
I sure hope the successor to this TV throne doesn't make fun of any POCs.
They could try a couple shows without her. The story could be that Rosanne's in the hospital after being struck by lightening. If the new show works, say she died. If not, bring Roseanne back, but say the lightening strike made her color blind.
The TV sitcom sells itself on controversy.
Barr delivered the controversy. She did her job as it should be done.
That black female executive of ABC is an incompetent. She's placing the Diversity bullshit agenda ahead of profits.
Incompetents like this now infest every corporation in the U.S. They are a drag on the economy and they are torturers and sadists in the workplace.
So, we can be affronted by sitcoms that dun us about faggotry, ridicule Christianity and present fathers as buffoons, but we can't make fun of blacks. Fuck that. Not that I watch anything on cable TV.
Where's the tough, courageous guy who puts controversy and profit above everything and is willing to take the guff? Are we all cowards?
Great actors are moons and need a planet. Great TV writers too, and even clever Sara Gilbert is merely a moon without a planet. Roseanne is a planet.
John Goodman seems planet like to me.
Humor before Trump ruined it
The list of secondary characters having a successful series developed for them is basically one
Maude and The Jeffersons spun off from All in the Family. Gomer Pyle spun off from Andy Griffith. Lou Grant spun off from Mary Tyler Moore. Laverne and Shirley spun off from Happy Days. I could go on....
I think Disney/ABC may be crazy enough to try it. I do think generally, the biggest problem about Roseanne was the title actress. She had alienated many with her beyond the pale antics intended to be edgy comedy. As they say about being on the edge, sometimes you get cut. She got cut this time. However, she made this particular show an early success by providing a product that no one else was; a show that didn't look at Trump as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis. People tuned in to see it.
Will the pro-Trump series continue without Roseanne? I don't think so. Would that still attract an audience? Perhaps initially, to see what is made of the train wreck, but I don't see a long following. There is probably enough product for a few seasons, and if it just moves a little to the left (Trump may not be Hitler, but he's nothing special either); then it could make some money. That's all it needs to do. In the off season, it would generate a lot of buzz as they keep secret "what will they do with Roseanne's character?"
Happy Days --> Laverne and Shirley *and* Joanie Loves Chachi
One example of success and one of failure.
What about hello larry, great move McLean stevenson.
The reboot of "Will & Grace" is terrible. It is awful in comparison to the earlier incarnation of the show. Further, the new show injects a lot of anti-Trump 'jokes' into the dialogue. I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the ratings for the new show are a relative dumpster fire.
But I'm sure 'The Connors' would be a better Leftwing show.
If you don't fear your POCs, you can't have any TV show.
A POC couple walk into a bar, and the bartender says "What'll you have?" and the male POC says "Nothing, we're already drunk and besides, we're broke!" And the female POC says "We just want to hang out for a while, then use your bathroom to shoot up in the privacy we deserve", and the bartender says "Well, that's what we're here for! And here's a banana for your monkey."
They could say that Roseanne was hauled away for having insulted some big shot. Oh, wait.
9 recent episodes on this reboot, and oh the right wing handwringing.
Birkel,
This would be more like Laverne and Shirley-->Shirley
Roseanne is a planet
No, she's lost weight.
New and improved is neither.
"Two And A Half Men" continued to prosper sans Charley Sheen.......I never watched the show, but Roseanne doesn't look irreplaceable. Still, making the show all about a liberal character doesn't sit right. How about remaking The Greatest Story Ever Told. This time Christ tells his followers that a later, greater prophet will someday come along and show them the the true path.
Rosanne is a planet that spins off hits, like The Big Bang Theory, for example.
Important that she be professionally “put down” on a pretext without a trial. After all, the American people are a scary bunch and it is important that what they see is carefully “curated.” After all, the peasants are revolting.
It will be like what happened with The Simpsons. It went from centered around Bart and Lisa, and a topic of national conversation, to centered around SJW Lisa, and a reliable money maker.
My understanding is Roseanne owns a large portion of the show. She's worth over $80 million dollars so she doesn't need the money. She also owes the cast nothing based on the loyalty they've shown her. The question is how does ABC do another series using the characters without paying Roseanne for the privilege? If they manage to find an audience for the revamped show, which I doubt is there, how will ABC cover themselves for still making money for Roseanne?
9 recent episodes on this reboot, and oh the right wing handwringing.
Whining bastards! Don’t understand that controlling what they see is good for them! They suffer false consciousness!
Happy Days also launched Robin Williams. His Mork was a successful spin-off.
"I never watched the show, but Roseanne doesn't look irreplaceable."
Gotta love that..
They could say that Roseanne was hauled away for having insulted some big shot. Oh, wait
Disappeared.
Mark said..."9 recent episodes on this reboot, and oh the right wing handwringing (sic)."
9 episodes that did not conform with all the other network shows and Leftist Collectivists are released from their long national nightmare. Roseanne is cancelled and all is right with the world.
Donald Trump is president. The Senate is (nominally) controlled by Republicans who are likely to add 5-6 seats this November. The House is controlled by Republicans who are likely to maintain control in November. A majority of governors are Republicans. A majority of state house seats are held by Republicans.
But at least the Leftist Collectivists control Hollywood and the NFL.
Rosanne had an eye for unlikely talent, Johnny Galecki? and an ear for the American people, and an artists impatience with boundaries. Well, this is America, and here there are boundaries on what a person is allowed to think.
They'd better do their due diligence with Sara Gilbert. Scour social media, read every interview she's ever given, talk to her 1st grade teacher, etc.
It will be a flop.
People watched Roseanne because she was un-pc. Audience are at edge to see what she would say next even though her dialogue was written for her.
Roseanne without Roseanne is another sitcom, pc and trite.
I was recording the Roseanne show out of curiosity. I liked that it showed a family that wasn't a cookie cutter Liberal wet dream. Poor, struggling, not politically correct, sometimes rude to each other and yet still loving each other and can pull together.
It was OK. A bit heavy handed. Some funny lines but not really all that great. Most of the characters other than Goodman as the Dad, were just plain annoying and too one dimensional.
Now that ABC did a knee jerk murder of the show for political purposes, I don't have any desire to continue watching it.....for any reason.
Sorry to the other cast members. You hitched your wagon not to a star but instead to a dumpster on fire.
ALL TV must be for the glory of THE PARTY.
Let's see: Before 'Roseanne' Gilbert had two acting credits: an ABC Weekend Special, and 'Calamity Jane' a TV Movie when she was seven.
Then: Sara Gilbert appeared in 228 episodes of 'Roseanne.'
After: guest roles on various shows -- the biggest seeming to be a stint on ER from 2004-2007, and a few failed sitcoms.
What Gilbert also has appeared on in 2018:
2018: 'Living Biblically': "An adaptation of the non-fiction book by A.J. Jacobs, in which a man tries to live in accordance with the Bible's teachings as close as possible."
Cancelled after eight episodes. "The show has struggled in the ratings since its Feb. 26 premiere. It opened with a 0.8 rating among adults 18-49 and hasn’t gone higher since then; through eight episodes it’s averaging a replacement-level 0.7 the night it airs, along with 4.21 million viewers....It’s the lowest-rated comedy CBS has aired this season."
2018:'Jane the Virgin': "A young, devout Catholic woman discovers that she was accidentally artificially inseminated..." Gilbert is not the young devout Catholic woman; she appeared in one episode.
Example ratings: "670,000 total viewers and a 0.3 demo rating,.."
In contrast, the 'Roseanne' reboot: "...on Tuesday night, the show finished as the No. 1 program in primetime among adults 18-49, the coveted demo advertisers care about. It averaged a 2.6 Nielsen overnight rating... Among total viewers, Roseanne averaged 10.2 million."
So 'Roseanne' is her main claim to fame: it is what gave her a career, and it is what brought her back to prominence as an actress; on her own, not so much.
And now she throws Roseanne Barr under the bus over a bad Tweet.
From an Althouse post yesterday: "Why do some women have NO female friends?"
Oh: in 1997 Gilbert was in 'Sports Theater with Shaquille O'Neal'. Without Roseanne I don't believe she would have ever had the chance to get that sterling credit.
LWL
Remember that horrible Doors album they made after Morrison died? Ray Manzerik tried singing baritone. It flopped.
I don’t wish the costars of “Roseanne” ill. But they should have put some effort into the rash move of cancelling the original.
I now see how this will play out. They do the spin off and when ratings dip, they bring a contrite Roseanne back on the new show.
Shouting Thomas said...”That black female executive of ABC is an incompetent. She's placing the Diversity bullshit agenda ahead of profits.”
That theme itself could be turned into a sitcom if done right. Probably too meta though for TV.
You people are idiots. Rosanne is a star, John Goodman is a planet and Sara Gilbert is a moon.
It's a phenomenonological thing Howard, not logical. Ann predicted the reboot. I gave a review of the next season.
Rosanne is a star, John Goodman is a planet and Sara Gilbert is a moon.
Roseanne has become a black hole whose field the lesser bodies are trying to escape.
“That black female executive of ABC is an incompetent. She's placing the Diversity bullshit agenda ahead of profits.”
Someone pointed out that the money lost by canceling the show was peanuts in terms of Disney revenues. Cost too much to make, and they apparently didn’t control it, so they didn’t get the residuals. So, the money lost is less important than explaining to their friends in show business why they didn’t cancel it. If Disney wants to worry about anything they should worry about having effectively destroyed the Star Wars franchise by too much political correctness, after having paid so much for it.
Roseanne is/was a shaky unreliable and unconvincing Trumpoid poser. The Trump fans won't watch. The progs won't watch. Who's left ? All the people nostalgic for Sara Gilbert's hot bod ? 7 people a week won't pay a network BOd bonus.
sara gilbert
Verified account @THEsaragilbert
May 29
Roseanne’s recent comments about Valerie Jarrett, and so much more...
--
What is the so much more..in her view at that time?
If Disney wants to worry about anything they should worry about having effectively destroyed the Star Wars franchise by too much political correctness, after having paid so much for it.
If they would hide "The Path to 9/11" for all these years, they care less about money than politics.
The Roseanne reboot should be about a retired professor, now full-time blogger.
I have no idea why anyone would want the show revived without Roseanne. Roseanne was the show - the "planet." Its revival wasn't very good because of how it cut its pro-Trump sales pitch off at the knees even in parts of the very first episode, and then totally afterword. I lost what little interest I had quickly. A show around Sara Gilbert would be a year-long attempt at redemption. Who cares? The show was great once, in its time. That time is past.
Using 3-4 decades old examples of spin-offs might be less relevant in times of many on-demand entertainment sources or "channels".
Roseanne did nothing wrong. Her insult to VJ could not have been racist if she didn't know VJ was black. If she thought she wasn't black, the insult was just that, a personal insult to a person. Even if Barr were the Grand MIstress of the KKK it would be impossible for it to be a racist epithet against an entire ethnicity if she didn't know VJ was a member.
I guarantee she thought VJ was not black. Here's how I know: NOBODY KNEW VJ WAS BLACK UNLESS THEY WERE TOLD SHE WAS. Yes, that includes you bullshitters who are going to claim you knew.
The right hand woman to Obama looks "mixed".
Caps won't change that.
Good GRIEF!
wally, she worked for Obama, and may look "mixed", but what mixture?
Did YOU know she was part Black without being told? Don't blush.
They can call it Hoseanne.
Most would consider that a likely component..YES.
But go ahead and pretend otherwise IF THAT HELPS.
If she was smart, Roseanne should have blamed one of her 7 personalities.
i.e. Racism countered by mental illness status.
wally, you're lying and you know we know you're lying. Roseanne says she didn't know, and that seems highly probable to me, since I doubt anyone knew for sure without being told.
Is she supposed to chart everyone's family tree before she can say anything less than laudatory? Wouldn't want to offend The Holy People!
The honest, reasonable, and charitable thing would be to recognize that it's highly probable that Roseanne was telling the truth, and accept that. That is why Blacks will never forgive her.
Variety was saying during the week, that the Roseanne show meant $1 Billion for Disney over the new run. Don't know if that's true, but to me, $1 Billion is nothing to sneeze at.
the Roseanne show meant $1 Billion for Disney over the new run
I doubt it was even a tenth of that. Regardless, the production costs were huge. Roseanne and Goodman alone were costing $250,000 EACH per episode. I'm sure the other actors knew this and were getting a good paycheck as well.
Other questions; was Roseanne easy to work with? (Likely not Charley Sheen crazy, but...)
Despite it's high ratings, was it lifting other shows? I suspect this may be the real issue.
And don't forget that the advertisers who made all that money likely called ABC and said "we're out." So the advertising dollars which compensated for the lack of increases revenue across the schedule were going to vanish, leaving ABC with an extremely expensive show, headed by a very unhinged woman.
A show without Barr is likely to have 1/3 of the viewers who viewed it this past season. The first couple of episodes next season will have about 60% of the audience, then fall off after that.
the Roseanne show meant $1 Billion for Disney over the new run
They had her out selling the new ABC schedule to advertisers for four days as their chief attraction.
How much buzz did she have to bring in the crowd and listen to the sales pitch? How much more might ads have gone up based on proven audience numbers, real audience demographics, and people other shows couldn't effectively target?
The whole, "meh, ABC didn't really lose anything" is outweighed by the rumor they're trying some way to put the show back on the air without her.
You think Hollywood is suddenly worried about make-up artists and lighting techs losing a job?
While not a direct comparison due to the players involved, ask the people at Kevin Can Wait what happens when you dump the wife from the first season.
There is no way the show goes on without Rosanne.
Please raise your hand if you watch the Big Bang Theory every week to see Sara Gilbert.
After all those appearances, they couldn't even make her a main character. Stewart the Comic Book store owner is getting more screen time than her.
Please raise your hand if you watched Roseanne to see Sara Gilbert?
Her character has been the least interesting of all so far. What's her schtick other than having to take a job with good pay and benefits that doesn't feed her soul?
What's the storyline going forward? Moving her out of Lanford? Keeping her in Landford and watching her be miserable? Watching her come to grips with the life of a cocktail waitress at night but Carrie Bradshaw-like writer by night? Turning the entire town of Landford around by running for Mayor and helping everyone self-actualize?
Seriously, where do you see this show going but cancellation?
I haven't checked, but I'm pretty sure the ratings for the new show (Will and Grace) are a relative dumpster fire.
We had an expression in radio when describing a poorly rated program. Farts in the wind would get better ratings.
I present, Farts in the Wind:
Will & Grace” averaged a 0.9 rating in adults 18-49
While not a direct comparison due to the players involved, ask the people at Kevin Can Wait what happens when you dump the wife from the first season.
Lost my family immediately. The wife was the best character and they just made her disappear with a one-line explanation.
What it they hadn't fired Roseanne immediately? What if they allowed her to be contrite, which I think she is, to publicly apologize and explain why she said what she said? What if the first episode of the next season had the character Roseanne unthinkingly say something horrible to her mixed race granddaughter and have character Roseanne have to deal with the fallout and pain that caused to her granddaughter, son and family? What if it had been written and promoted as a very special episode, one that could have actually started positive dialogue on race relations and given ABC high praise and high ratings? They would not have gotten a scalp but they may have gotten something better.
They would not have gotten a scalp but they may have gotten something better.
Because they weren't interested in something better. They wanted the scalp.
Disney projects giving away money:
1) ESPN
2) Star Wars
3) Roseanne
4) half of the Avengers movies (propped up by the other half, to be sure) but a diminishing asset, imho
Revenue is great, I would bet. But earnings cannot be terrific. Bob Iger's presidential run is going to tank after he spends a deplorable amount of money.
Blogger Char Char Binks said... wally, you're lying and you know we know you're lying.
--
Speak for yourself... Even one of Rosanne's seven personalities asked folks not defend her.
Dixie,
They would have to convince sponsors they could manage that.
walter, could you say you knew VJ was black without blushing?
"They would not have gotten a scalp but they may have gotten something better."
Progs prefer scalps. Sorry.
MadisonMan said...
....But if the characters suddenly become the shining example of Hollywood Liberal Mindset, it won't last long.
6/2/18, 8:36 AM
Excellent Point!
Look at the massive failure of "Solo" picture. Kathleen Kennedy's [former Harvey Weinstein assistant] "Liberal Mindset" messages are killing the Star Wars franchise. Just like what happened to the "Muppets" franchise.
tou·ché tcrosse
But if the characters suddenly become the shining example of Hollywood Liberal Mindset, it won't last long.
Apparently not a single righteous Althouse commenter watched the rebooted Roseanne show after the first couple of episodes, when the plots turned to Very Special Epiphanies about Transgender Schoolchildren and Peaceful Muslim Neighbors.
In the category of revivals, I see that PBS is trying to revive "Firing Line", with Margaret Hoover trying to be Buckley. I watched one episode. She isn't Buckley.
For such a thing you need a very powerful personality who can defy the PBS consensus, and is happy to slip in the knife. And much more intelligent than Hoover.
one word: The Dixie Chicks
Who is going to watch Rosanne now?
people not watching aren't going to start (like the people that not listening to the dixie chix)
people that Did watch are going to be Pissed; like the dixie chix fans
who were the dixie chicks, anyway?
ps. a sitcom based on the professor's blog would be pretty cool! To paraphrase Samwise Gamgee; even Chuck would be good in a sitcom
Earnest Prole,
Did you note the ratings decline with each episode? Do you think ratings slipped because of the predictability of those (I am taking your word for it.) story lines from Leftist Hollywood?
How rapid will that decline be if Roseanne is no more? And if the decline is precipitous then it will be ABC TV executives who are at risk. Roseanne could snipe from the sidelines easily enough.
A reboot without Roseanne is not a riskless venture, even before considering the money at stake.
People watched Roseanne because she was un-pc. Audience are at edge to see what she would say next even though her dialogue was written for her.
Roseanne without Roseanne is another sitcom, pc and trite.
I think that's just about right. I watched most of the episodes of this latest season and only the first episode dealt with the Connors voting for Trump. All the rest came across as espousing progressive ideas.
and then in the season finale Roseanne returns - a chastened humbled Roseanne of course, but still there she'll be! Do they still have "sweeps week"?
I doubt if John Goodman and Laurie Metcalf are dumb enough to get on that sinking ship. Sara Gilbert certainly can't carry a show or she would already have one.
Actually, I hope ABC gives it a try because it likely will tank during the 1st episode.
What ABC should have done, and still could, is have Valerie Jarrett make a guest appearance on the 1st show of next season and have Roseanne and Valerie work it out as part of the show.
Massive ratings and Roseanne "redeems" herself.
It is taken for granted I won't see Rosanne.
But the question is: will all these deplorables watch the hippy dippy lesbian daughter as the main character, particularly considering HOW they axed Rosanne?
The other question is: how much influence did Rosanne have on the humor in the show? Was she the 'yeast' which made the dough rise?
I am guessing yes. Darlene was, from what I understand, a foil, a sharp little prick to poke at the main star.
Can she become the star? I don't care. I hope not. I can see this crashing and burning.
Sorry New York: if you want deplorable eyes and deplorable money, you need to cater to deplorables. And if you don't, fuck you.
The show being described will have no audience.
It is obvious that a show that doesn't explicitly shit on half the country will be popular. If ABC started Rosanne back up it would instant;y be #1 again.
But ABC is 100% owned by the Disney Family.
CBS is 80% owned by the Redstone family.
Comcast owns NBC. Comcast is "publicly owned," but all of the voting shares are controlled by Ralph Roberts, son of founder Brian Roberts, and he has undilutable control over the company.
The vast majority of the "media" is controlled by 3 families of super wealthy people. They are not really in competition. They don't care about ratings.
Comcast needs to be broken up. It controls competition with the "big 3." It does a bare minimum to stay out of anti-trust proceedings.
What are the chances that if they tried this, Rosanne would jack up the price of continuing the series to make her at least twice the money that they would have had to pay her for being a star on the show?
Can she do that? I hope she does do that.
Roseanne's next show should be interesting, I hope she makes the attempt.
Comcast owns NBC. Comcast is "publicly owned," but all of the voting shares are controlled by Ralph Roberts, son of founder Brian Roberts, and he has undilutable control over the company.
Oddly enough, the disgraced former Senator Al Franken tried to stop the Comcast-NBC merger, based on his experience in the Industry. Coincidence ?
who were the dixie chicks, anyway?
They were actually pretty good, and on the verge of making it pretty big when they opened their big mouths and shot themselves in the ass.
i bought their bluegrass album (their last one, ante bellum )
it was great! i throw it away when they became open commies
Their next album was supposed to be 'rock', getting away from their roots
it sold about 13 copies, world wide
Liberals are mad that after the Dixie Chicks insulted people that liberals hate anyways, the people insulted didn’t continue to make the choice to listen to the people who insulted them and to give them money.
Post a Comment