Slightly OT...When is political music OK?

[Dr. Ellwood]

Lyrics do not change anyting one way or the other for people that understand political, economic or social issues. As much as I dislike the DC's their comments and lyrics don't change anything for me or for the people who vote the way I do. Can you imagine anyone with a brain changing their minds on important issues because of some pinhead bobble heads lyrics. So if they are comming out against someting I believe in it really does not matter in the big picture.

[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.

It's not that hard to get there from this!

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.

[A String]

I wasn't aware of statements made by Maines.

 

Regardless, people are free to say what they want. If the Dixie Chicks make a stand on Politics and it blows up in there face and costs them their career, it's their own fault.

 

I think some of these guys know that, going in, but they risk it because they have a message they want to share.

 

When a Christian rock band, (for example) plays religious songs, certainly they must realize that it's going to turn off some people. but they do it anyway because they feel strongly about it. I think this applies to a large number of bands.

[Justus A. Picker]

Originally posted by ellwood:

Lyrics do not change anyting one way or the other for people that understand political, economic or social issues. As much as I dislike the DC's their comments and lyrics don't change anything for me or for the people who vote the way I do. Can you imagine anyone with a brain changing their minds on important issues because of some pinhead bobble heads lyrics. So if they are comming out against someting I believe in it really does not matter in the big picture.

It doesn't have to be about changing things any more than a novel written on a subject is supposed to bring about change. Reflecting the times, the point in history, from a specific viewpoint is the purpose.

[Corner Pocket]

Originally posted by ellwood:

Lyrics do not change anyting one way or the other for people that understand political, economic or social issues. As much as I dislike the DC's their comments and lyrics don't change anything for me or for the people who vote the way I do. Can you imagine anyone with a brain changing their minds on important issues because of some pinhead bobble heads lyrics. So if they are comming out against someting I believe in it really does not matter in the big picture.

It depends how how you view the lyrics. Do the lyrics raise questions or provide answers?

 

I believe what I believe, and I'm very comfortable in my own skin. The Joan Osbourne song "What if God was one of Us?" raises questions. John Lennon's "Imagine" raises questions. Good questions. "The DaVinci Code" raises questions. Questions are a good thing.

 

Do I now believe or not believe in God because of Joan Osbourne? Of course not. But the song gave me a bit more sensitive view, and I have a better respect for people of faith, (as opposed to people of religion). There is a strong sense of spirtuality in both "WIGWOOU" and "Imagine"of those songs that I don't 100% agree with, but I can respect.

 

Songs are one way of getting ideas out there. Based on songs I'm not too likely to change my core beliefs, but if a song, ANY song can raise an intelligent question, then I am listening.

 

Peoples understanding of political economic or social issues is tempered by core beliefs. There is almost a chicken/egg situation. Is it "I am Libertarian so this is what I believe", or "This is what I believe, thefore I must be a Libertarian". What comes first? The label or the definitions?

 

I believe that lyrics in what I refer to as "the great folk music scare of the 1960's" did make a difference. Folk music brought human rights issues into popular culture. Folk music brought Vietnam war issues into popular culture. CSNY's "Ohio" raises questions. "4 dead and Nixon's coming" speaks volumes about the president of the day. Do you change your vote because a song raised questions, raised awareness of an issue you might have previously overlooked? It might have an influence.....

 

"Do they Know it's Christmas?", "We Are the World" and "Tears Are Not Enough" raised millions of $$$ for social causes. People became aware of Ethiopia because Bob Geldof used his "celebrity" to get the issue out in the open. Bob Geldof asked the public if they thought the famine in Ethipia was OK, and millions answered.

 

Bruce Cockburn used "If I had a Rocket Launcher" to raise awareness of corrupt governments and oppressed people in Central America.

 

Just becasue The Dixie Chicks choose to direct their social/economic/political commentary at domestic issues doesn't make it any less valid.

 

The U.S. governemnt is, according to Honest Abe, "of the people, for the people, by the people.

 

The Dixie Chicks are some of those people and have equal right to speak, AND be listened to.

[Eric Iverson]

Re: "wearing it on their sleeve" - I'd rather know where someone is honestly coming from, myself!

 

Unless the person is really obnoxious about presenting their religious or political views, I appreciate the honesty, speaking in general.

 

What I find offensive is for people to be phony!

 

No, I'm not criticizing people who prefer NOT to talk about politics or religion onstage, either!

Just, if you are going to do so, be honest about it!

 

Just for the record, I mostly buy CDs because I like the music, and don't really care too much about the politics! In other words, I don't necessarily agree with the Dixie Chicks, but that doesn't mean they aren't good pickers!

[musicalhair]

It is always OK, in fact it is always more than just OK. It is sorely needed. People need to become desensitized to open and honest political discourse from all sides of the spectrum (not "both" sides which is biggest sham going), or they'll remain ignorant of the full range of political options available to us and our form of government suffers.

 

There is a saying that goes the only solution to freedom of speech is more freedom of speech. Good ideas need to be heard, incomplete ideas need "fleshing out" to become more complete, and bad ideas need exposure. Immature ideas need to see the light of day in order to "grow up".

 

I guess a "pocket sized" example of the difference between entertainment and art is the political content of it. Jay Leno seems to straddle the line really well finding "entertainment" in political subjects as much as he does in anything else. The Daily Show takes a bit "thicker skin" to watch, and not just for conservatives. I played a fundraiser for Dennis Kucinich and the Daily Show sent Samantha Bee and a film crew to cover the event. When the peice aired the subjects of the bit were mortified. The couldn't appreciate that the humor the Daily Show found in them wasn't an attack on their political purpose, but to be fair it is tough being the punchline in a joke. Still these two examples are entertainment and not really political.

 

If music is to be listented to "deeply" it will have to reflect the politics of it's time, and hopefully transcend it. I've been listening to Love's 1967 album "Forever Changes" like non-stop this week and while some of it sounds "dated", a lot of it is worth reflecting on, and with or without it being a product of it's times: it is a great album.

 

As for the Dixie Chicks, anyone that pretends there wasn't an orchestrated effort to shut them up-- and end their careers from within the country music world-- has just drank too much of the kool-aid. Thankfully, as their record is now topping the charts, the world is a lot bigger than shut-in reactionaries that flip out when the find out their "entertainers" actually think for themselves sometimes.

[LPCustom]

Yes, the right to free speech does not guarantee insulation from any repercussions. It only guarantees that you can't be arrested (except for McCain-Feingold) for speech that does not cause a danger to public safety (incite to riot, etc).

 

I think it's funny when entertainers are surprised that their fans react negatively when they say something that their fans believe is out of character with their view of that entertainer. It's even more funny when those entertainers whine about "censorship" when all that happened is their fans quit buying their material.

 

The word "censorship" gets bandied about quite a bit by the "artistic" crowd (almost as much as "Nazi"). Many of them seem to think that if people decide not to buy their material based on something they said or did that that constitutes censorship. What it really shows is how stupid they are.

 

I am getting tired of the whining about it, though. Sometimes I get the feeling that most people have lost their ability (and, I think, the desire) for critical thinking.

 

True censorship is when the entities we have authorized to use _force_ to achieve their ends (government), edit or cull some material from publication or distribution. Anything else is private discretion.

 

It is not censorship when a government entity decides not to fund some work of "art" any more than if you refuse to buy a work of "art".

 

There is something of a grey area where private entities remove or edit material in collusion with government. And has been stated, this is "de-facto" censorship.

 

The problem is that it is very difficult to prove causality. We don't know if the materials were edited/culled because of the private entity's political beliefs and that those private entities have cozied up to politicians because of shared beliefs or if they were edited/culled because of "requests" from government in an attempt to curry favor. It could just as easily be one as the other.

 

In general political music doesn't really do anything for me. If the tune is good, I'll listen to just about anything. Most of the time, the words don't mean anything to me. They certainly aren't going to change my world view. There are very few songs that I've actually paid any attention to the meaning of the lyrics. I know the words but have never actually paid attention to what was being said.

 

There is a phenomenon, though, that I wonder about when it comes to politically charged songs. The phenomenon is basically that if you repeat something enough times people begin to believe it's true. Even when it's demonstrably false. If a political song is popular enough, even though the premise to the song is false will people start to believe the message of the song anyway?

 

I mean, how many people actually believe that Billy Joe McAllister jumped off the Tallahatchee Bridge? Me, I don't know and I don't care. But some people, when asked about Billy Joe would tell you that he jumped off that bridge. And there was even a song about it.

[Gifthorse]

When it is a good song