Slightly OT...When is political music OK?

[Corner Pocket]

The Dixie Chicks thread got me thinking.....

 

What is the difference between the new Dixie Chicks album, the new Neil Young album, and Green Day's American Idiot?????

 

Really, what's the difference? I get that there are obvious genre differences, but why are The Dixie Chicks effectivley exiled from radio, yet Green Day never lost airplay? Neil Young has never really based his career on radio acceptance, so he's not a great comparison here.

 

Both the Green Day and Dixie Chicks records are strongly influenced from similar political/social beliefs.

 

Are the listeners of stations that play Green Day more tolerant of political views than the listeners of country music radio? Or are the rock music listeners more apathtic?

 

Did Green Day try to throw a political party and nobody came?

[Warthog]

Without getting tool deeply into the politics, I think country music fans tend to be more conservative, flag wavin', God and country types. The industry is generally less tolerant of opposing viewpoints, thus the backlash against the Dixie Chicks. Having visited Nashville, I mean, dang, you're in the heart of the Bible belt. There are lots of gospel songs in the genre as well. Look at a Brad Paisley album, or even Alan Jackson's new work. Could Green Day sell records if they threw a couple gospel songs in the mix?? Maybe, but country music fans don't bat an eye at it. Country and gospel have deep-seated similar roots, and everyone knows that spiritual people are intolerant bigots (that's a joke, a stab at myself).

 

That being said, I think it's great that we can dissent in this country...it keeps us honest, or more honest than an autocracy anyway. Artists need to be prepared to deal with the backlash that comes with dissension. To me, country music seems less tolerant to it than other genres.

 

On this forum, political music is ok as long as we're talking about the music, and not delving too deeply into the message.

[A String]

I think it has to do with the musical style. Green Day is aimed at kids. Kids always seem to be naturally rebellious toward the government and therefore embrace the music. Thus, no phone calls to the radio station and media.

 

Dixie Chicks play Country music. Country fans are, stereotypically, more patriotic and supportive of the government. This means that when their music rebels, they take it to heart and make phone calls.

 

Or at least that's how I see it.

[Eric Iverson]

Well, people who are passionate about their politics don't really much CARE if it stirs up controversy.. that's the INTENT!

 

I think those people should feel free to write songs to express their point of view, whether or not I agree with them.

 

There are questions of appropriate formats, of course. A time and a place for everything.

 

I do have to question whether we would be talking about Bob Dylan today if he'd been afraid to express his political opinions in song back in the '60s. If he'd played it safe, he would have been long forgotten!

[Gruupi]

I think if an artist has sincere political views than they have every right to present them. Last time I checked we do have free speech in America. An audience does have the right to not want to listen these views. I think it is borderline that a country music station should ban a band because of their views. It is getting close in concept to the blacklisting of communists of 50 years ago.

[SlyFoxx]

Q: When is political music OK?

 

A: Practically never.

 

I don't care enough about your politics to suffer through you making it rhyme. Entertainers who wear their political views on their sleeves should just go away.

 

I think it stems from the fact that in the grand scheme of things, entertainers don't really do a whole lot for society. Thus a fractioin of persons involved in such activites look to other things to give themselves a feeling of purpose. But I think they are also motivated by the desire to have others see that they are "doing something about it" thus stroking their ego.

 

Follow me on this one... A doctor saves lives. The trash man helps keep the streets clean. A carpenter will build you a house that will stand for 100 years. A stock boy keeps the store shelves full. A fireman puts out fires and saves lives and property. These are all tangable achievements that can be catagorized and measured. Now just what exactly does a guitar player or an actor do that betters society? Make people happy for a few moments? That's about it.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by SlyFoxx:

Now just what exactly does a guitar player or an actor do that betters society? Make people happy for a few moments? That's about it.

Yeah, you're right. Culture. What a waste of everybody's time.

 

 

Are you for real?

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

An audience does have the right to not want to listen these views.

If it's a question of you choosing to buy a CD that has political statments in it's songs...then sure, you have a choice.

 

But...when an entertainer takes advantage of a captive audience (live concert/TV)...and all of a sudden decides to blurt out a political/religious opinions (and you just wanted to be entertained)...

...then they are stepping over the line.

They are abusing your freedom of choice, as you may not be able to easily leave the concert or turn off the TV fast enough to NOT hear their message.

It's a question of tact.

 

For someone like Neil Young...political statements are the norm and most people are not shocked when he makes them.

Heck...I pay little attention to Neil's political statements...but I have always loved his music, and he is one of my favorite "Classic Rock" musicians...not to mention his unique guitar sound/playing, full of passions...and not just a lot finger exercises like you get with many players.

 

I think the Chicks really stepped out of their accepted image when they made their political commentsand thats why they got the excessive backlash.

[marvar]

Musicans are citizens too- I feel they have the right to state issues that they think need to be questioned, just as every other citizen of the U.S. has that right. It makes you as a listener think, and helps to keep things in check and in balance, just as the founders intended.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by SlyFoxx:

Follow me on this one... A doctor saves lives. The trash man helps keep the streets clean. A carpenter will build you a house that will stand for 100 years. A stock boy keeps the store shelves full. A fireman puts out fires and saves lives and property. These are all tangable achievements that can be catagorized and measured. Now just what exactly does a guitar player or an actor do that betters society? Make people happy for a few moments? That's about it.

Well don't stop there....

What about athletes...what do THEY really do for you?

What about the guy painting pictures?

Or people that make other things just for viewing pleasure?

What about poets and writers?

 

You're missing a BIG point with your perspective.

Art has and always will be one of the noblest of professions.

You can go back in time to the beginnings of man and through the ages...

...artists have always been revered, and it's widely accepted that without art society would be quite boring and meaningless.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by miroslav:

But...when an entertainer takes advantage of a captive audience (live concert/TV)...and all of a sudden decides to blurt out a political/religious opinions (and you just wanted to be entertained)...

...then they are stepping over the line.

They are abusing your freedom of choice, as you may not be able to easily leave the concert or turn off the TV fast enough to NOT hear their message.

Yeah, but that happens all the time. You go into a strange bar for a cup of coffee and while you're waiting you realize that they have lots of pictures or posters for some cause with which you disagree. There was nothing out front which hinted at this. And you've paid your money, so you're not going to walk out. So you have your coffee and make sure you remember never to come back.

 

Like I said, it happens all the time.

 

 

Originally posted by miroslav:

It's a question of tact.

Lets forget about America and the current war because that's too loaded a subject. Let's talk about some imaginary country where the govt. has taken an unpopular decision. Raising taxes, say.

 

What you're saying, basically, is that singers have to be tactful when they present a one hour show and not complain about the taxes, but the government who raised the taxes doesn't need to be tactful even though their decisions affect the people 24/7.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by SlyFoxx:

Q: When is political music OK?

 

A: Practically never.

 

I don't care enough about your politics to suffer through you making it rhyme. Entertainers who wear their political views on their sleeves should just go away.

 

I think it stems from the fact that in the grand scheme of things, entertainers don't really do a whole lot for society. Thus a fractioin of persons involved in such activites look to other things to give themselves a feeling of purpose. But I think they are also motivated by the desire to have others see that they are "doing something about it" thus stroking their ego.

 

Follow me on this one... A doctor saves lives. The trash man helps keep the streets clean. A carpenter will build you a house that will stand for 100 years. A stock boy keeps the store shelves full. A fireman puts out fires and saves lives and property. These are all tangable achievements that can be catagorized and measured. Now just what exactly does a guitar player or an actor do that betters society? Make people happy for a few moments? That's about it.

So the role of the artist in society should be that of the court jester, simply providing mindless distraction for the masses? Should we stick to silly love songs, "reality" TV and novels without content?

 

Should we ban "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic", "16 Tons","Masters Of War","This Land Is Your Land", and other songs that verbally painted a picture of the times in which they were written?

 

Democracy is a participatory game that requires input from all citizens, even those with guitars.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Ok, ok.

 

So basically, are we happy with "political music is ok, as long as the audience knows what it's buying"?

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

double post.

[Warthog]

Originally posted by Gruupi:

I think if an artist has sincere political views than they have every right to present them. Last time I checked we do have free speech in America. An audience does have the right to not want to listen these views. I think it is borderline that a country music station should ban a band because of their views. It is getting close in concept to the blacklisting of communists of 50 years ago.

I don't think they were ever "banned"...DJ's chose not to play them. If they were "banned" I think that's ok since the stations are privately owned. If the government banned them, like the commies, that's a different story. Many scream "censorship" when it's not really the case. You contradicted yourself in saying that the audience has the right not to want to listen to the views. Aren't country music stations part of the audience?? If a station chooses not to play the music, fine, it's not censorship imposed from above. If I'm the DJ and I don't like your music, I ain't gonna play it, it's that simple. You can't compare this with McCarthyism, which was government sponsored...

[MILLO]

Personally I think rock listeners, who are mainly KIDS (especially Green Day's fans), are extremely apathetic. Older rock fans may get more into politics, especially extreme fans of the old Punk guard and/or extreme fans of Southern Rock. I don't think two these groups of people in general like Green Day anyway (from my experience). Regardless, most kids (even teenagers) of "liberal" households seem to like Skynyrd (and some of them even like bible-wielding country music), while many kids of "conservative" households seem to love Green Day's latest hits. In heavy metal, you get both extremes anyway.

 

I think kids pay most attention to the "hooks", the SOUND (here's an important one), and attitudes presented in the music, not necessarily the underlying message in the lyrics, even though the may sing a couple lines out loud.

 

I'm saying this because this is what I've seen, as a teacher and audience member. I don't say "as a musician" because I don't play country, or rebellious punk rock--although anyway I've had to deal w/ some of these people as a player.

 

Many country music fans I've met seem to be extremely prejudiced (I'm not talking race here, or I should type "not only") against certain concepts and/or people, while many fans of hippie/folk/old punk rock fans I've met seem to be extremely prejudiced against almost all things that may characterize the "conservative" stereotypes. In both sides, it seems like their attitudes and reactions to certain types of music, etc. (I'm not talking "political views" here) seem to be triggered by all these extra-musical ideas they have constructed in their minds, and seem to be the attitudes of people whose personal world is very, very small.

[LPCustom]

The backlash against the Dixie Chicks doesn't have anything to do with their music. It has to do with a political statement made by Natalie Maines about President Bush during a concert in England.

 

The main problem with her statement was that country music fans tend to be more religious and conservative than fans of other genres. Her statement did not sit well with the group's fans because of that.

 

Making the statement she did in public (in a another country no less) was a pretty dumb thing for Maines to do considering the political makeup of their fan base. Complaining about the backlash afterward was even dumber. It just compounded the problem.

 

The above are not political statements. They are statements of fact about recent occurences. No political discussion about the rights or actions of the Dixie Chicks or their fans is engendered.

[Justus A. Picker]

I don't think they were ever "banned"...DJ's chose not to play them. If they were "banned" I think that's ok since the stations are privately owned. If the government banned them, like the commies, that's a different story. Many scream "censorship"

If the stations are locally owned and the DJ's choose what to play you have a point. If the stations are owned by a conglomerate that kowtows to a particular political agenda and the playlists are approved at the corporate level it's a different story. If the corporation wants "favors" from those in power and bows to their wishes by not presenting certain points of view you have defacto censorship.

[miroslav]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

 

 

What you're saying, basically, is that singers have to be tactful when they present a one hour show and not complain about the taxes, but the government who raised the taxes doesn't need to be tactful even though their decisions affect the people 24/7.

Apples and oranges, Vince.

 

Government's job deals with taxes.

A Country Western singer traditionally sings about cowboys, horses, trucks dogs and she/he-done-me-wrong kinda' stuff (unless you're Willie Nelson ).

 

If you go to an AC/DC concert...and right after "Shook Me"...Angus walks up to the mic and starts shouting "Down with Bush" or "Kill the Iranians"...

...aren't you going to be a bit annoyed by that?

I know a lot of people would be.

 

Granted, there ARE artists who's entire artistic career is based ON political statements...but IMO, those people are not really into art just for art's sake, but are instead are only using art as a vehicle for their political "message".

While that kind of art can be creative...it's not the same as other art, and can be put into the same category as the slew of political posters/slogans/advertisements that we are bombarded with each election season. A lot of those political ads are creative and often entertainingbut I dont call them art.

IMO, true art should allow the audience to personalize it for their own experience.

I think true art should ALWAYS be open to individual interpretation.

When you use art to just give YOUR political message...there really is nothing left for the audience to interpret...is there?

[Corner Pocket]

But aren't popular musicians associated with causes all the time?

 

Farm Aid is a country dominated format, but isn't Farm Aid *socialist* (gasp!!) at the core?

 

Wasn't part of the larger message of the Freddie Mercury Concert for Hope a call to *socialized medicine*? (double gasp!!!!)

 

Wasn't the Arts community rallying behind Nelson Mandela a tacit endorsment of terrorism, if the terrosim is done for the right reasons?

 

When you have a message, and an opportunity to make that message public, should you not take that opportunity? AFAIK, Natalie Maines was NOT booed off the stage in England. The backlash occured in the U.S. of A., where one or two sentences has been turned into a speech.

 

Dind't Springsteen take part in an anti-Bush concert series?

 

I think part of TDC problem is that they are, in fact, "chicks". I think there is some gender bias working against them.

 

I'm 40 years old. I think that "American Idiot" is one heckuva kick arse Rock&Roll record. It's up there with "Never Mind the Bollocks". The difference to me is that while both Green Day and The Sex Pistols have a great desire to say something, only Green Day seems to have had something to say. I'm not saying I agree with Green Day, but they put together a hell of a good package.

 

I believe that the best art challenges us to think. Knee jerk reactions are not thinking. Discounting the music because we disagree with the message does a disservice to the music and the musician. Ignoring the message in the music does a disservice to yourself.

 

From a Canadian standpoint, with the media reports I have seen and read, I don't think the U.S. is in Iraq for the right reasons. I think that blind trust of elected leaders is foolish. We can't trust them, that's why they have to re-apply for their jobs on a regular basis.

 

Artists re-apply for their job too, with every piece of work they put out for public consumption.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by miroslav:

Government's job deals with taxes.

A Country Western singer traditionally sings about cowboys, horses, trucks dogs and she/he-done-me-wrong kinda' stuff (unless you're Willie Nelson ).

Actually, it's kinda funny but C&W is probably the most political music in the US. A lot of it deals with economic hardship, hard work (or the lack of it), legal injustice, and the interpersonal relationships of grown ups with houses and kids and mortgages and stuff. Real life things, in other words.

 

And the big crunch, politically, comes when you wonder what the hell the singer is going to do now that he's lost his wife, his wife, his truck and his dog and what conclusions the singer comes to. And of course, the fan base often has some very definite ideas on how their favourite artists should think, behave, etc. Tell me that isn't political.

 

But that's an aside.

 

Anyway, the problem is that if the government of Ruritania (the imaginary country of) raises taxes it impinges on the singer's ability to make a living by singing about horses and ranches and all that picturesque stuff. So there's the guy, all ready to sing about his hoss, only the money doesn't go as far as it used to. The government is getting in this guy's face, he's obviously going to respond

 

And imagine how terribly unwieldy it would be if the government went as far as conscripting ppl for a war (and I AM talking about Ruritania here, no such thing has happened over Iraq)

 

In other words, sometimes you WANT to sing about horses, but it's not really what's on your mind.

 

 

Originally posted by miroslav:

If you go to an AC/DC concert...and right after "Shook Me"...Angus walks up to the mic and starts shouting "Down with Bush" or "Kill the Iranians"...

...aren't you going to be a bit annoyed by that?

I know a lot of people would be.

Yeah, I would. I disliked it when Killing Joke did it and I actually agreed with them. But they were right.

 

 

Originally posted by miroslav:

Granted, there ARE artists who's entire artistic career is based ON political statements...it's not the same as other art, and can be put into the same category as the slew of political posters/slogans/advertisements that we are bombarded with each election season.

Yeah, but it's not like the REST of the world is producing "Art". Some are. But a great big, gooey chunk of the recording world is only interested in finding the next Britney Spears or the next cash cow.

 

If a band wants to change the world, that shows they're at least thinking, rather than worrying about their poledancing or miming skills.

[SlyFoxx]

KFIII............Yeah, you're right. Culture. What a waste of every body's time.

 

 

Are you for real?

When did I say culture was a waste of time? Art is great. It's just not as important as growing food or finding clean water or healing the sick.

 

Some of you seem to be adding stuff in between the lines of what I wrote. Of course folks with guitars should be able to sing about politics! But 99% of the time I don't want to hear it. It's the wearing it on your sleeve part that turns me off.

 

Justus A.Picker.....................Should we ban "The Battle Hymn Of The Republic", "16 Tons","Masters Of War","This Land Is Your Land", and other songs that verbally painted a picture of the times in which they were written?

If you can read my first post and come up with that...I mean really.

[MILLO]

Originally posted by LPCustom:

Making the statement she did in public (in a another country no less) was a pretty dumb thing for Maines to do considering the political makeup of their fan base. Complaining about the backlash afterward was even dumber. It just compounded the problem.

I only learned about this when it was posted here. Regardless, I think you're right.

 

I agree because of one thing: The Dixie Chicks are a commercial, mass-appeal phenomenon, not some underground rebellious political, or music-art-and-philosophy type of affair that is totally uncompromised by the business and/or political machinery. I think they shouldn't complain about the backlash, and that they did MAYBE reflects the fact that they don't think too much about what they say, so in other words, they may not be entirely COMMITTED to what they said. Therefore, maybe they're STILL a commercial phenomenon, trying to vent party politics. Now: whatever their views, I think they're entitled to have them, just like Toby Keith, Green Day, David Allan Coe, Ted Nugent, Joan Baez, etc...

 

Personally, when I listen to music, I listen mostly to the MUSIC not the lyrics. I think it is OK to write lyrics that reflect political and/or religious and/or philosophical views, but for the sake of all those thing sthat don't suck, do it in a "tasteful" way! "Don't vote for whatshisname" or "vote for whathisface" is downright stupid. Just like there are lots of other ways of writing stupid lyrics. However, I won't support acts whose music is ENTIRELY the opposite of what my views are. That doesn't mean I won't LISTEN to it, and consider it in a MUSICAL level. If Richard Wagner were alive today, I wouldn't go to a concert featuring his music, and I wouldn't buy his records. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't consider studying his music, knowing all the things I could learn from it.

 

I think music should be kept ART, even when talking about politics. In my opinion, it is for this reason that there are certain genres that because of their "straight-forwardness" (made a word right there, I think) and "concreteness" (made another one) fit obviously political lyrics better. It is easier to make them fit well, since these genres are usually (not always) simple, and the actual melodies/harmonies tend not be as dense or require as much attention as in other genres. For example: Hip-hop, punk/pop-punk, and country.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by SlyFoxx:

When did I say culture was a waste of time? Art is great. It's just not as important as growing food or finding clean water or healing the sick.

Well... it DOES help to make us different from ants and bees That's got to be worth SOMETHING.

 

The problem is that your view, IMHO, is too idealistic. Some doctors save lives, yes. Others concentrate on inventing a better boob job and becoming rich. Some of that clean water helps the struggling farmers of Darfur, and a lot is bottled and sold to yuppies in the 1st world.

 

And I also have the feeling that even the most idealistic of idealistic doctors are sometimes fond of music. You've heard of Albert Schweizer, right?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Schweizer

[SlyFoxx]

KFIII....The problem is that your view, IMHO, is too idealistic.

Not the first time I've gotten that. Hell, you might be right. I have strong opinions about things. I'll express them without fear of reprisal from time to time. I just don't do it when I'm on stage.

[Squ]

Screw it man.. people can do whatever they want. If a musician wants to turn preacher, you may not like it but good for him. It's something he believes in, and maybe he wants to do more with his life than play pop songs. You don't have to listen or like it. It may be a bit annoying, sure, but I'm sure you can handle it. And art isn't about pleasing an audience. Art can do whatever the hell it wants. If all art was pleasing, it'd be pretty boring. Art should shock you, titilate you, offend you, make you think, help you relax, get you energized, inspire you, do whatever.

 

Also, by the way entertainers are a big part of culture. And entertainers who preach politics are attempting to move beyond being an entertainer and cause some social change for what they believe in. It's OK for people to step beyond their defined roles..

 

As far as the "banned" music goes... Let's remember all the music that was needlessly banned from clear channel stations after 9/11.

 

See list here

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

Originally posted by Squ:

See list here

That's fricking hilarious! I can't believe they banned poor old Louis Armstrong's "What A Wonderful World"!

[GuitarPlayerFL]

Originally posted by LPCustom:

The main problem with her statement was that country music fans tend to be more religious and conservative than fans of other genres. Her statement did not sit well with the group's fans because of that.

Country music tends to attract sheeple.

Free thought is not allowed.

[MILLO]

Originally posted by Kramer Ferrington III.:

Originally posted by miroslav:

Government's job deals with taxes.

A Country Western singer traditionally sings about cowboys, horses, trucks dogs and she/he-done-me-wrong kinda' stuff (unless you're Willie Nelson ).

Actually, it's kinda funny but C&W is probably the most political music in the US. A lot of it deals with economic hardship, hard work (or the lack of it), legal injustice, and the interpersonal relationships of grown ups with houses and kids and mortgages and stuff. Real life things, in other words.

 

And the big crunch, politically, comes when you wonder what the hell the singer is going to do now that he's lost his wife, his wife, his truck and his dog and what conclusions the singer comes to. And of course, the fan base often has some very definite ideas on how their favourite artists should think, behave, etc. Tell me that isn't political.

 

But that's an aside.

 

Anyway, the problem is that if the government of Ruritania (the imaginary country of) raises taxes it impinges on the singer's ability to make a living by singing about horses and ranches and all that picturesque stuff. So there's the guy, all ready to sing about his hoss, only the money doesn't go as far as it used to. The government is getting in this guy's face, he's obviously going to respond

 

And imagine how terribly unwieldy it would be if the government went as far as conscripting ppl for a war (and I AM talking about Ruritania here, no such thing has happened over Iraq)

 

In other words, sometimes you WANT to sing about horses, but it's not really what's on your mind.

Great reply.

[miroslav]

I don't care if the guy wants to sing about taxes instead of his horse, because he just got screwed by the Gov.

 

I'm just saying that if I'm expecting to hear another horse song...and instead at a concert I get "Down with the Gov"...I may not be all that sympathetic...and it may piss me off AS A FAN of his "horse song" image.

 

That's like saying...if you are having a bad day, you can stand on the street corner and scream at the passing public, because you feel like it...

...and no one should be annoyed by it...???

 

Theres free speechbut if you get in my face with itthats a different thing altogether.

You cant tell me I shouldnt be annoyed by it and complain about itjust because you have some right to free speech.

You do your free speechjust dont shove it in my face without my consent.

..and thats what happens when artists all of a sudden decide to give their captive audience for something TOTALLY different than what expect.

Some people will get pissed off by it.

Andthats the price those artists will have to pay. They will lose some fans.