Politics in Music

[cblinkdude182]

Well since someone already started a politics and religion thread, I figured I would ask you guys and gals if you let a band's or musician's politics effect your decision to buy their albums?

[kenfxj]

No. I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment.

 

There are a lot of artists whose politics I agree with yet whose work I dislike. And vice versa.

[Rocky McDougall]

Absolutely.... I will never spend a dime for anything that is remotely connected to "The Dixie Chicks"

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Rocky

[LLroomtempJ]

i think it is a wise decision to not discuss politics on stage.

 

IMO, If your songs are political, then so be it...but in between song banter shouldn't be like "Bush sucks" nor should it be "Hillary's lame".

 

 

[EddiePlaysBass]

Well, the only album I regret having is S.O.D.'s debut LP (I think) which I snatched up along with some Death LP's. And when I say LP I am talking vinyl. The reason is cos of this song called "Speak English Or Die". Apparently the album's also called that, by the way :grin: I listened to it once, was thoroughly unimpressed by the music and when that particular track came around it was the first and the last time I listened to it. I am incredibly tolerant about anyone's views regarding anything, to the point where I think I'm actually wrong to be so tolerant. But I'm the son of an immigrant, and I take personal offense to that song and the lyrical content (if you must, you can read it here) to the point where I simply do not wish to listen to that album ever again. That said, I know it's (mostly) members of Anthrax, and I still like that band and listen to their music (Anthrax).

 

Hell, my singer and I would definitely not see eye to eye if we would discuss politics. But it does not creep into our music (since we play covers :grin:) so what do I care? That said, bands taking a firm political stand, such as the Dixie Chicks or Bruce Springsteen for that matter, have every right to do so. They'll lose fans in the process, gain others and in the end we can wonder what they got out of it, but it's a free Western world here so more power to them for being so bold. I never discuss politics nor religion, not even with my best friends. I'll dabble a bit and will entertain certain conversations to certain points, but in the end it's my PERSONAL belief and I do not wish to share it with others, nor do I wish others to share it with me.

[EddiePlaysBass]

Jason? Where have YOU been, man ?

[jcadmus]

Hypocrisy is a bigger issue for me than politics.

 

I get tired of entertainers spewing liberal dogma who haven't done a load-out or gotten into a cold automobile in a decade.

 

If you're signed to a major label, win Grammies, headline shows at the Enormodome, travel in private jets and cushy tour coaches, and have a signature-model bass, you're not raging against the machine -- you ARE the machine.

 

"Don't wanna be an American idiot..."

 

Uh, too late.

 

That being said, I really don't care for political views in music from either end of the spectrum -- either way, they usually get it wrong and often don't know what their talking about anyway.

[Nicklab]

Interesting question. The idealist in me wants to say no, that it doesn't matter. But then I look at the material that I buy and decisions that I've made. And in the case of when there's a political message in the music, it tends to be more leftwing than anything else.

 

Some anecdotal examples?

 

-I won't buy Toby Keith's material. Mainly because I think his music is crap and modern country is mostly garbage. But his public persona as a down-home kind of ****kicker-redneck is so uncool that I try to keep anything like that at arms length.

 

-I'm not into the whole Christian rock thing. Even when it came to a band like Creed, where it was more of a lyrical subtext. But again, here I thought that the music was garbage first and foremost. When I heard the lyrics and caught the religious subtext I was even more turned off. But strangely I think a lot of gospel actually kicks ass. I think a lot of that might have to do with the fact that so many of those players groove like some scary muthas.

 

-There was a guitar player that we were considering for our band. I had been acquainted with the guy a number of years back and thought he was a decent enough guitar player. We hooked up on myspace and were bouncing schedules back and forth, trying to schedule something. While that was going on, I was reading some of the stuff on his myspace page. I'm not sure if it was Nietzsche or not, but the writing reminded me WAY too much of Hitler's Mein Kampf, which I had to read and report on for a college paper. Needless to say, that gave me the willies and I dropped contact with the guy because I thought he might have been a Neo-Nazi.

 

 

As for other artists taking political stands in their music? Go for it. I have no problem with people freely expressing their ideas. And cultural changes are so often heralded by people in creative fields like music, art, theater, writers, satirists, etc. I think it's a perfectly healthy thing for the arts to be that kind of sounding board for a society.

[Basshappi]

Shut up and play!

In other words,if it's in the music fine but don't stand there and talk about it.

 

I don't really care about an entertainers'particular beliefs.

However,if an artist announces that the proceeds from their CD, performance or whatever is being donated to a cause/organization that I absolutely reject, then I will not support it.

[kenfxj]

However,if an artist announces that the proceeds from their CD, performance or whatever is being donated to a cause/organization that I absolutely reject, then I will not support it.

Yeah, I would imagine that would be true for me as well.

[Nicklab]

Shut up and play!

In other words,if it's in the music fine but don't stand there and talk about it.

 

See, as a musician who is concerned about what's going on in the world, I have to take exception to this. When did we as musicians surrender our right to say something if we believe in it so very passionately? Now are there performers who are going to say something dopey because they're misinformed on an issue, or their beliefs are somewhat radical in one direction or another? Sure. But there are probably just as many performers who may be thoughtful advocates for whatever cause they raise to their audience. And I think that a performers beliefs might be in line with something of a cross-section of their own audiences.

 

I also think we're all smart enough to know that not every performer is travelling by limo and private jet from gig to gig. The majority of working musicians don't see that kind of luxury lifestyle. But if someone does, don't you think that they might have paid their dues along the way, and they've earned the respect of their audience?

 

I think a lot of this argument stems from this whole anti-hollywood, anti-celebrity message that gets spouted by a good deal of the rightwing media. But the funny thing there is that the selfsame rightwing media tends to focus on gossip stories, celebrity news, and sells America shows like American Idol. They want to make money off of people who entertain you, but they don't want to hear them talk about their political views. A very bizarre dichotomy if you ask me.

[jcadmus]

True, Nick, but no one likes to be lectured.

 

You can't separate the artist from who he is, and that will be reflected in his art.

 

But there's a difference between writing songs that reference fishing or farm foreclosures and standing there blathering propaganda at people who paid good money to hear you sing.

 

And you don't have to be rightwing to quickly conclude that many if not most popular entertainers are shallow, misinformed hypocrites.

 

I sort of have problem with it when Sheryl Crowe lectures us that we're using too much toilet paper and it's hurting the environment, and then hops a Gulfstream home.

 

If you can name five Hollywood entertainers who are the thoughtful advocates you reference, I'll buy you a sandwich.

[Nicklab]

When you're already working under the assumption that someone who works in the entertainment field is an idiot, then you're already disrespecting their right to say something. And the truth is that they very well might be an idiot. But the opposite could be true as well. And the same could be said of your next door neighbor. They might be just as much of a moron or hypocrite. Or someone on this forum could hold that place of renown.

 

I sort of have problem with it when Sheryl Crowe lectures us that we're using too much toilet paper and it's hurting the environment, and then hops a Gulfstream home.

 

Now here, I can totally PWN you. Why? Because you're working under the assumption that Sheryl Crowe is flying around in a private jet. But when she made these particular comments she was on a combination music/speaking tour with Larry David's wife regarding the environment. Their mode of transport? A tour bus. I recall the interviews as I was actually involved in getting some of this material on the air on one of the news networks. Do I think that some of that position was extreme? Yes. Who can get away with using just one square of toilet paper. But the cause of raising environmental awareness was just. And I'll make a judgement call here, but I don't think a Prius is the most efficient way for a good number of people to travel around in on a tour.

 

Now if an artist decides that they need to say something onstage, they've probably thought about the possible repercussions. Namely, being lambasted in the rightwing media (that's where most of this comes from), bad mainstream press, a possible drop in ticket sales, or a drop in record sales. But they're big boys and girls and are probably ready to deal with the consequences.

 

So then where is the audience on this matter? They have just as much of a right to walk out of a gig if a performer starts saying something that they disagree with. They have the right to go to the box office and demand a refund. They have the right to stop buying concert tickets, albums or merchandise. The door swings both ways on this particular brand of hypocrisy. You may decry Bruce Springsteen's political stance, but did you buy his last album?

 

The issue gets even more complicated when a corporation gets involved. Like Clearchannel. The Dixie Chicks said their peace over in London, and the suits at Clearchannel directed their DJ's to start this campaign decrying the Dixie Chicks. And it was very much manufactured by Clearchannel. But what has happened over the longer term? The Dixie Chicks are even more critically acclaimed now than before. And very likely they're dealing with Clearchannel's subsidiary that books so many of the venues across the US. Where does the burden of hypocrisy lie there?

[jeremy c]

We have a tradition in California.

 

Actors and musicians who speak up about liberal causes are criticized for it.

 

Actors who run on the Republican ticket are elected (or appointed) to office. Ladies and gentlemen, I present:

George Murphy, senator

Ronald Reagan, governor

Sonny Bono, U.S. Representative (and succeeded in office by his wife, Mary Bono!)

Shirley Temple Black, U.N. Representative

Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor

Clint Eastwood, Mayor

 

I can only think of two Democrats from show business:

Helen Gahagan Douglas, U.S. Representative (who later was defeated in a campaign for Senate by Richard Nixon who ran a smear campaign....he called her a communist even though her voting record in Congress wasn't much different than his).

Sheila Kuehl, U.S. Representative (she was Zelda on the Dobie Gillis tv show).

 

What someone famous says is not going to influence my vote. I am an informed voter and make up my own mind. My opinion of someone's acting or singing may or may not be affected by their political views. Sometimes I find it amusing.

 

Actually being amused by politics is better than getting angry or depressed. It least it is better for one's mental and physical health.

[Rocky McDougall]

All of us have a right to express our views...but we must be ready for the concequences of that action, if any. Many musicians take pride in acting in a "Professional" manner when before an audience. You will probably never see or hear a conductor of a symphony speak out his personal views on any subject. Very rarely will you hear negative comments from Jazz Musicians or Country / Western performers. The majority of trash talk comes from Hard Rock and Rap groups. Why? It's just the nature of the beast...IMHO...Not that it is worth anything, But I do have the right to express it.

Rocky

[SuStudio]

The issue gets even more complicated when a corporation gets involved. Like Clearchannel. The Dixie Chicks said their peace over in London, and the suits at Clearchannel directed their DJ's to start this campaign decrying the Dixie Chicks. And it was very much manufactured by Clearchannel. But what has happened over the longer term? The Dixie Chicks are even more critically acclaimed now than before. And very likely they're dealing with Clearchannel's subsidiary that books so many of the venues across the US. Where does the burden of hypocrisy lie there?

 

Hang on there a second Nick. I was in Nashville doing sessions when this came across the news stations in the US and I can tell you that the backlash again the Dixie Chicks was a 100% grassroots effort on the part of musicians, promoters and the fan base. It was not Clear Channel, the GOP or even Fox News who kept the flames stoking on this contrary to what the liberal MSM wanted you to believe. Remember, this band was primarily a C/W act which is rooted primarily in conservative circles and dissing a sitting president when our country is at war is not going to go over well with this crowd. Now, you want to exercise your First Amendment right? Fine, but don't go crying when the consequences don't feel so good. The Chicks took it right on the chin and had to seek additional VC financing to support their failed tour. They also relinquished a back-end deal and swapped points to weather the storm that was coming at them from traditional C/W fans. The Chicks then hired a new management company, changed their target audience to mainstream and designed a new product. They experienced what is also so prized in this country: Capitalism. In other words, the product became undesireable and the fans voted with their wallets. This was not a story of corporate bullying at all and definitely not some "vast right wing conspiracy".

 

BTW, I'm an independent just in case you wondered.

[_Sweet Willie_]

In answer to the original post: yes, a band's politics may sometimes affect my decision to buy an album or download tunes. Usually, I'm judging the music first and the politics second. I'm more likely to be affected by the representation of the politics in the music than knowing what the muscians' politics are outside of their music.

 

Musicians should do as they see fit in terms of how they link or don't link their politics and their art. If they want to sing about an issue...great. If they want to spend time on stage spewing their views...great. If I'm not down with that I won't go to another show. If you're not down with that, then don't go to any of that artist's shows. I don't ever want anyone to dictate to me what I can and cannot say and do when I'm on the stage.

 

Lots of people, not just musicians or actors or other artists, take advantage of their visibility to promote their positions on issues. Lots of politicians take advantage of celebrities' visibility and popularity in their campaigns by including them in political events, fundraisers, etc.

 

This thread has the potential to get aggressive and we tend to try to avoid political discussion 'round these parts. I think the original post and question posed is quite legitimate, but I'll keep my eye on this discussion. Thus far, though, it seems that everyone's being pretty respectful.

 

Peace.

--SW

 

 

 

 

 

[_Sweet Willie_]

Let me add that there are some limits. I'm not down with "hate speech," but I'd hate to see this thread head down a path focused on that.

 

Peace.

--s-uu

 

[Paul K]

Absolutely.... I will never spend a dime for anything that is remotely connected to "The Dixie Chicks"

 

And that's all I have to say about that.

 

Rocky

 

Wow....I, on the other hand, pulled out a few three Dixie Chicks discs that my wife had in her collection and gave them a fresh listen. Democracy is all about being able to say your piece; I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that just accepting the status quo without question is very dangerous. And Natalie proved she's got some big Moxie for saying something that was totally against the grain at the time.

 

And from the way history has played out, I too am "...ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas," (which I don't think is even all that nasty of a thing to say.)

 

...So I guess you don't watch "The Daily Show" and "Colbert Report".....

 

Gotta catch up on more of this meaty thread!

 

[Nicklab]

The issue gets even more complicated when a corporation gets involved. Like Clearchannel. The Dixie Chicks said their peace over in London, and the suits at Clearchannel directed their DJ's to start this campaign decrying the Dixie Chicks. And it was very much manufactured by Clearchannel. But what has happened over the longer term? The Dixie Chicks are even more critically acclaimed now than before. And very likely they're dealing with Clearchannel's subsidiary that books so many of the venues across the US. Where does the burden of hypocrisy lie there?

 

Hang on there a second Nick. I was in Nashville doing sessions when this came across the news stations in the US and I can tell you that the backlash again the Dixie Chicks was a 100% grassroots effort on the part of musicians, promoters and the fan base. It was not Clear Channel

 

I stand corrected. It was Cumulus Media that directed their radio stations to do so.

[Juancarlin]

Well... around here (South America) we have a tradition of music, politics, and musicians linked to politics.

 

I tend to have some sort of switch. If I look for Music, I try not to care much about the political opinion of the musician/performer. Since I have worked with a handful of the names in our local music industry, I also happen to knew firsthand about their views, and know who agrees with my view and who doesn´t. But that (and the fact most of them have been my friends long before I even got my political wake-up mind call) does not interfere on what I think about them as musicians (Noting also that some of them are total dumbs -to say the less- otherwise, who like to give opinion without being informed on anything).

 

On the other hand, the people around who make music with specific political purposes, tend also to be very little "musically proficient", so their music is not only simpler, but, to me, most of the time boring. Then, if I agree with the IDEA, I can support the MUSIC. If the idea goes directly against my beliefs, AND it is cleverly expressed in the music, then I won´t get close to it. But that´s only if the idea is directly expressed (as it sometimes is) on the music itself. Otherwise, even when I would wish some talented musicians would share my POV, that doesn´t makes them less worthy of my appreciation, if their work is worth it...

[jeremy c]

South America (Brazil, to be specific) is where Gilberto Gil and Caetano Veloso are from.

 

Both are great, innovative musicians (and founders of the tropicalismo style) and both were arrested in 1968 for "anti-government activity" by the military government that ruled Brazil at the time. After serving time in jail, they left the country and lived in exile in London for a while.

 

Gil is currently serving as the Minister of Culture in Brazil.

[Kramer Ferrington III.]

The funny thing is that so much political stuff goes unsaid by performers.

 

When a rapper's answer to social inequality is to flash his personal bling in videos rather than say or do something about the conditions that keep the rest of the old neighbourhood back, then that's a political statement.

 

When "girl power" consists of airheads wearing mini skirts, that's a political statement.

 

And no matter how repressive a political regime is, there will always be vapid pop acts on that country's radio (some Muslim theocracies excepted). And whose side do you think those vapid pop acts are on?

 

All those "non political" performers are basically saying that their system's fine by them. And that's just as political as any other statement.

[5 string Mike]

Alot of 60s and 70s music was very politically charged. Being a PF fan, I don't necesarrily agree with all of Roger Waters' political views that he expresses in his music, and I don't care for David Gilmour's blatant and pronounced atheism, but I believe in their right to express these views through their music. I still buy it, because it is good stuff. Some songs I don't listen to, like Leaving Beirut. I think it is up to the artist to decide, and if they choose wrong, they suffer the consequences. For example, The Final Cut was the first PF album in over 10 years that did not make the Top 5, but it's all about war, more particularly WW2. It was a very powerful album, but the market for something like that isn't very big, so sales suffered.

 

Politics in music? At your own risk, I guess.

[carpedebass]

I don't have a problem with artists or actors talking about what they beleive in. I don't even have a problem if it influences their trade. What I have a problem with are the numbskulls out in the general listening/viewing audience who actually buy into it wholly because some actor or musician says they should. Sorry, but I'm a musician. That's what I do. I have my own convictions and beleifs, and they work their way into my music. I am wholly a Christian, and will not play in secular bands or bars, etc. That said, I will not tell anyone that they should pay more attention to me than...say a pastor. I will not tell someone that they should pay more attention to me than a political scientist. I am not an expert in those areas. I'm a musician. I wish people in the general public would grasp that concept. Pay attention to the people that are trained in these areas rather than actors and musicians. I hope this makes sense. I am a musician...not a writer.

[Paul K]

You're a writer.

[fingertalkin]

I could be way off base here, but, to me that is what music is about: invoking emotion. I don't really care to hear that Nathalie is "ashamed" of G-Dub regardless of what I think but, on the other hand, I think that thier rebuttal on "Not Ready to Make Nice" is great. Particularly the line where she says something to the effect about someone sending her a letter telling her to shut up and sing or your life will be over.

 

I understand that politics is a total hot button issue. I don't believe people should be threatened or worse for their beliefs. Everyone on this forum has the right to say whatever they want whenever they want. We just don't have tv cameras and paparazzi following us around. Well......maybe Erik because I heard this rumor that he is "Drop Dead SEXAY"!

 

So what if Sheryl Crowe uses a private jet. What about Bono? That guy does more than any celebrity that I know of. I am sure he uses standard transportation; be it private jet or big 747 jumbo jets. I saw the argument over jets or buses earlier in the thread. Come on people! We need to find solutions. I don't care if you believe you are more righteous than me. Banter gets nothing accomplished.

 

How many times have we spoken or done something about something we believe in instead of complaining about what someone else did or said about it. I am sure that the ratio is definitely swayed. Obviously, I am generalizing, so I don't mean to offend those who are more gracious than I. I am definitely more of a complainer than a do-er. I will admit it.

 

So I don't mind that bands have subtexts or come straight out and say what they believe. If I like it or not, I respect them more for it than not having a backbone and standing up for what they believe in for personal gain. I, like MR. Sweet Willie, will not go back to a show where I don't feel like the money I spent was worth it.

 

I have a question that is kind of off topic but relevant as well.

 

Why is it always assumed that actors and musicians or celebrities in general would be a better way to put it, are uneducated? Not all of them are like Brittany Spears or Paris. Just a thought.

[jcadmus]

When you're already working under the assumption that someone who works in the entertainment field is an idiot, then you're already disrespecting their right to say something. And the truth is that they very well might be an idiot. But the opposite could be true as well. And the same could be said of your next door neighbor. They might be just as much of a moron or hypocrite. Or someone on this forum could hold that place of renown.

 

I sort of have problem with it when Sheryl Crowe lectures us that we're using too much toilet paper and it's hurting the environment, and then hops a Gulfstream home.

 

Now here, I can totally PWN you. Why? Because you're working under the assumption that Sheryl Crowe is flying around in a private jet. But when she made these particular comments she was on a combination music/speaking tour with Larry David's wife regarding the environment. Their mode of transport? A tour bus. I recall the interviews as I was actually involved in getting some of this material on the air on one of the news networks. Do I think that some of that position was extreme? Yes. Who can get away with using just one square of toilet paper. But the cause of raising environmental awareness was just. And I'll make a judgement call here, but I don't think a Prius is the most efficient way for a good number of people to travel around in on a tour.

 

Now if an artist decides that they need to say something onstage, they've probably thought about the possible repercussions. Namely, being lambasted in the rightwing media (that's where most of this comes from), bad mainstream press, a possible drop in ticket sales, or a drop in record sales. But they're big boys and girls and are probably ready to deal with the consequences.

 

So then where is the audience on this matter? They have just as much of a right to walk out of a gig if a performer starts saying something that they disagree with. They have the right to go to the box office and demand a refund. They have the right to stop buying concert tickets, albums or merchandise. The door swings both ways on this particular brand of hypocrisy. You may decry Bruce Springsteen's political stance, but did you buy his last album?

 

The issue gets even more complicated when a corporation gets involved. Like Clearchannel. The Dixie Chicks said their peace over in London, and the suits at Clearchannel directed their DJ's to start this campaign decrying the Dixie Chicks. And it was very much manufactured by Clearchannel. But what has happened over the longer term? The Dixie Chicks are even more critically acclaimed now than before. And very likely they're dealing with Clearchannel's subsidiary that books so many of the venues across the US. Where does the burden of hypocrisy lie there?

 

Too many points to rebut here, so I'll summarize:

 

I was making about point about Sheryl Crow, but it's pretty clear that the personal lifestyles and carbon footprints of her and other rich celebrities are far larger than those of your average American -- this is classic "do as I say, not as a I do" behavior. Her cohort Laurie David routinely uses private jets.

 

Can't get to the gig in a Prius? Why not? That's how I get to mine.

 

The original question was do I allow the politics of performers influence whether or not I buy their records. My answer was yes -- principally when I notice their words and deeds don't match up.

 

I don't need to assume they're either morons or hypocrites -- all I have to do is listen to their words and look at their behavior.

 

They have the right to SAY whatever they like, but they shouldn't be shocked if at least a few people do the math and conclude that they're full of crap.

 

And you might want to go easy on that "rightwing media" stuff -- it assumes that we're not capable of critically analyzing what the media says either and it makes you sound like a bit of a conspiracy theory nut.

[jeremy c]

What's up with all the hatin' on private jets?

 

Go ahead and try to get your whole band and entourage somewhere on time on a commercial flight.

 

[fingertalkin]

it makes you sound like a bit of a conspiracy theory nut.

 

I don't think we need to cross that line.

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is that companies like ClearChannel and the like have the power to influence us as consumers by choosing not to air certain artists. If the powers that be so choose that an artist said something offensive, they can "boycott" that person or group which affects public perception. Conspiracy theory, I think not. It is most definitely influential.

 

The question is why they did it. Is it because they have lobbyists in DC that they could benefit from by admonitioning the situation, do they have a subsidy with a vested interest in gaining notoriety with a different view of the situation ie Toby Keith and his record company. I have no idea who Tobys' record company is, just using him hypothetically.