OT: music and politics.

[jcadmus]

I don't object to artists participating in the public dialogue or championing a cause they are passionate about, provided they have something of substance to say on the subject.

 

It's just that all too typically they don't. The only thing that differentiates them from the guy mumbling about the government on a street corner is their celebrity. And that's not much of an endorsement -- or shouldn't be.

 

[butcherNburn]

On a similar note, the overwhelming extent that political correctness is jammed down our throats can be equally disgusting and stifling to creativity. Like may things, good intentions, and the effort to please or not offend anyone does not always produce the best results.

 

Often, for greater effect, instead of using a "curse word" that people listening would not really consider offensive, I'll use an acceptable scientific or biologic word that gets a real reaction.

[5 string Mike]

I agree about the PC status-

 

I find it interesting how things have changed on the PC front.

 

For example, how far would 'Blazing Saddles' make it today?

 

I remember in the '80s and '90s how gays were parodied- anyone remember the Ambiguously Gay Duo, Ace and Gary? how about the radio skit (may have been Bob and Tom) about the Australian cigarettes (fags) with a hole through the filter called the butt hole? And the In Living Color skits that Damon Wayans and David Alan Grier used to do?

 

One name I am surprised hasn't come up yet is Roger Waters. His latter Pink Floyd stuff and basically all his solo stuff is very politically/socially based. He was involved in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament before becoming a full-time musician. Even today, he's involved in a lot of pro- Palestinian causes and very political.

 

Now it's his right to take his message to the masses in song, but only a small niche of people really gravitated to it. As seen with much of his solo work and 'The Final Cut', people just aren't up for thinking that hard when listening to music. Half the people who bought 'The Wall' couldn't tell you who Haig, Begin, or McCarthy were (from Fletcher Memorial Home off The Final Cut).

 

For Waters, it really did hurt his career.

[jeremy c]

The only reason I listen to Bono is because of his political career. Otherwise, I think his band is pretty boring.

[lug]

Unlike the others, I think that Fred Thompson was first a politician who later became an actor.

 

 

All politicians, no matter how initially well intentioned, eventually become actors.

 

[kenfxj]

Blazing Saddles would not and maybe even could not get made today. Just look at the crap Tarantino got for Django Unchained.

[Richard W]

The only reason I listen to Bono is because of his political career. Otherwise, I think his band is pretty boring.

 

Agree, though this reminds me of a headline I saw on The Onion web site: "Three Other Members of U2 Don't Give a Shit About Africa"

[_Sweet Willie_]

I don't object to artists participating in the public dialogue or championing a cause they are passionate about, provided they have something of substance to say on the subject.

 

What do you mean by "something of substance," and why should your definition/standard of substance be the one that Artist A, Artist Q, or The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist X subscribes to before opening his mouth? One person's substance may be another person's excrement, so to speak.

 

I think this thread is confounding a lot of issues.

 

Do celebrities have a right to voice their socio-political views through their art (e.g., a song) or as part of their presentation of that art (e.g., a concert)? Yes. Don't we all?!

 

Do we have to listen to them, or subsequently continue to support their art? No, we don't.

 

Does what celebrity artists say have value in the public discourse? Maybe. But we're each likely to make our own decisions as to the value of what they say in our lives, or in our own subsequent action (or lack thereof).

 

In my opinion, one of the key questions here is what responsibility does someone with public visibility or fame (as a result of their art) have as regards the extent to which that artist is thoughtful, or cautious, or whatever in what she says publicly and how/where she says it? In the end, I think it's the artist's right to say what she wants to say in whatever venue she chooses. However, it's with some hope that at least some consideration went into it.

 

That said, don't we all have friends who say the damnedest things at the damnedest times and we know that they'd say those things in the same situations even if they were famous?!

 

Peace.

--SW

 

 

 

 

 

[slowfinger]

Some might say that the 'protest songs' of Dylan, Baez etc shaped a whole generation - well, mine anyway. The songs themselves were not overtly political (ie not along the lines of 'Nixon is a creep - don't vote for him') but more about asking us to look at or question some aspect of the status quo or conventional way of thinking. I'm thinking of songs like

- Blowin in the Wind

- With God on Our Side

- Only a Pawn in the Game

- Universal Soldier

- Eve of Destruction

 

And then there's the lifestyle songs like

- (If You're Going to) San Francisco

- If Six Were Nine

- Imagine (of which Lennon said "It's just a song, man.")

- Don't Think Twice

- One Too Many Mornings

 

All of these affected me in some way I think.

 

Just some random thoughts ...

[kenfxj]

Willie, I'm of the opinion that there really isn't a responsibility on the part of the artist to measure what they say. Of course you can't incite to riot but otherwise...

 

I think the responsibility lies with the fan, the consumer. What if the fan is young and impressionable? Well that's where parents come in. I raised my kids from when they were very young to think for themselves. Don't follow the herd unless you happen to agree with where the herd is going.

 

We've been conditioned to think that anyone who stands up in front to speak to us is an expert. That isn't necessarily true about actors or musicians unless they are speaking about acting or music. Ted Nugent is no more an expert on national policy than Bruce Springsteen is. It's our responsibility to realize that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[picker]

"If you're listening to a rock star in order to get your information on who to vote for, you're a bigger moron than they are." -- Alice Cooper

 

I think that goes double for Mr. Brand.

 

Being famous doesn't imbue the celebrity with any special knowledge or insight.

 

There are exceptions, of course -- celebrities who possess some intelligence and insight, who've taken the time to deeply understand a topic and truly have something to share.

But for every one of those there seem to be 100 Rosie O'Donnells.

 

Amen. If I want dental work, I go to a dentist. If I want good cooking, I go to a chef. If I want political commentary, I'll go to a a musician? No. A musician or artist might have a valid opinion on matters beyond his field of expertise. But the chances are just as good he's parroting back what he's been told by somebody he who knows more than he does about it.

 

[butcherNburn]

If I want political commentary, I'll go to a a musician? No.

 

Not making light of your point but if you want political comentary, a politician might not be the best choice either.

 

I vote. But when I feel really strong about who I'm voting for, I'm never seem to be voting for someone as much as against someone else.

[rumpelstiltskin.]

We've been conditioned to think that anyone who stands up in front to speak to us is an expert. That isn't necessarily true about actors or musicians unless they are speaking about acting or music. Ted Nugent is no more an expert on national policy than Bruce Springsteen is. It's our responsibility to realize that.

 

i'm not sure many professors of music at the college level would consider messrs. nugent and springsteen experts on music.

[jcadmus]

All politicians, no matter how initially well intentioned, eventually become actors.

 

 

And vice versa, evidently.

[jcadmus]

The only reason I listen to Bono is because of his political career. Otherwise, I think his band is pretty boring.

 

Seriously, we need a "like" button.

 

I actually think they're a pretty good band, but that's gosh darn funny, JC.

[jcadmus]

 

What do you mean by "something of substance," and why should your definition/standard of substance be the one that Artist A, Artist Q, or The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist X subscribes to before opening his mouth? One person's substance may be another person's excrement, so to speak.

 

 

"9/11 was an inside job -- steel doesn't melt!","childhood vaccinations cause autism", and "Obama wasn't born in America" completely lack substance, are provably untrue and cause damage to the social discourse and society as a whole.

 

If a celebrity wants to make totally dumbass statements like that, that's their right.

 

If they use their fame to spread those asinine views, I reserve my right to call them the dumbasses that they are.

 

And if people believe those dumbass statements just because they're made by famous people, more is the pity.

[Groove Mama]

What do you mean by "something of substance," and why should your definition/standard of substance be the one that Artist A, Artist Q, or The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist X subscribes to before opening his mouth? One person's substance may be another person's excrement, so to speak.

And if people believe those dumbass statements just because they're made by famous people, more is the pity.

I'm a big free speech fan, but that's one of the downsides of it, for sure.

[Richard W]

As Winston Churchill once said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

[b5pilot]

Everybody is entitled to their opinions and I have no problem with them expressing their opinions however they choose to do so be it word, song or deed (as long as innocent bystanders are not affected or put upon by that deed). I can simply choose not to listen or buy their stuff. Or not participate. I would also hope the average person would use some critical thinking skills and not take any celebrity or politician at face value but do some digging for themselves. Not just blindly believe what they have to say as the truth or fact.

 

Now, when I go to a concert or watch a show and there was nothing in the advertisement that there will be dialogue about some political stance or a pet cause, and the performer breaks out with some long rant, I'm sorry but I'm going to be pissed. No matter what the cause is. I'm there to be entertained and that's what I was lead to expect. I get enough political opinions jammed down my throat through the daily medias.

 

If I know about it before hand like as example, a concert to save Two headed kittens or a concert for some political issue, then I have the option to go and see what they have to say or not participate by going or watching. That I'm cool with. I don't want to be blindsided.

[rumpelstiltskin.]

i try not to treat people as objects, but to understand them as dynamic, real people. as such it's inherently unfair to expect an entertainer only to entertain, or a model to be seen and not heard. maybe i'm being too holistic, but everyone is more valuable to me as a complete person than as some monolithic, singular trait.

[jeremy c]

+1

[Bob Gollihur]

As Winston Churchill once said: "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter."

 

+1000

 

It seems like the more you actually know the more you are unsure that you know enough to come up with a truly fair answer. There are no simple answers to complex questions, but the world responds to exactly that.

 

In a world where the delivery of extensive details of issues is cheaper than ever, the less people seem interested in them... if they ever really were.

[b5pilot]

i try not to treat people as objects, but to understand them as dynamic, real people. as such it's inherently unfair to expect an entertainer only to entertain, or a model to be seen and not heard. maybe i'm being too holistic, but everyone is more valuable to me as a complete person than as some monolithic, singular trait.

 

Agreed. But there is a time and a place for such things. If the said entertainer wants to hold a concert for a cause and bill it as such or hold a press conference I'm totally good with that. I would then expect some dialogue. I just don't want to go to a concert or see a show and be unknowingly subjected to some diatribe when all I want is a good time temporarily free from the issues of the day. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

[Bottom End]

If the said entertainer wants to hold a concert for a cause and bill it as such or hold a press conference I'm totally good with that. I would then expect some dialogue. I just don't want to go to a concert or see a show and be unknowingly subjected to some diatribe when all I want is a good time temporarily free from the issues of the day. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

+1 My point exactly

[Nicklab]

Willie, I'm of the opinion that there really isn't a responsibility on the part of the artist to measure what they say. Of course you can't incite to riot but otherwise...

 

I think the responsibility lies with the fan, the consumer. What if the fan is young and impressionable? Well that's where parents come in. I raised my kids from when they were very young to think for themselves. Don't follow the herd unless you happen to agree with where the herd is going.

 

We've been conditioned to think that anyone who stands up in front to speak to us is an expert. That isn't necessarily true about actors or musicians unless they are speaking about acting or music. Ted Nugent is no more an expert on national policy than Bruce Springsteen is. It's our responsibility to realize that.

 

I think Ken is really onto something here.

 

We (most of us in the thread at least) live in the United States. And part of our Bill of Rights is the 1st Ammendment, which guarantees us all a right to free speech. Clearly, there are limits on that speech: you don't have the right to incite riots or make a false alarm of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. But it does give everyone the right to exercise that speech as they see fit.

 

Some people will exercise that right to free speech wisely, and others less so. Some will use that right to call for action when a wrong has been committed. And others will use that right to lay blame at someone's feet and use demagoguery to make people fear and hate something. Regardless, EVERYONE HAS THE SAME RIGHT TO FREE SPEECH, whether they're on a street corner, playing in a coffee house, or on stage in a stadium.

 

Where the disconnect seems to be is the choices of the audience where someone has chosen to use their right to free speech. Exercising some critical thought about what a famous person chooses to say is just as important as what that same famous person has said. And if you're in the audience and a performer starts speaking politically? You, the audience, have the right to stay or go. If that message is so disagreeable, ask for a refund at the box office.

 

As for music with a message? It's an important part of our musical history. And I think that over time, those who have presented well-thought out political messages in their work have been validated. Still don't care? Then put your money where your mouth is, and start tossing all of your records by Paul Robeson, Woody Guthrie, Bob Dylan, The Beatles, CSN&Y, John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, The Clash and all the rest. Because they have clearly made social commentary work in the context of their music.

 

Reject that? Then in time you may look as foolish as those who took to burning Beatle records in the wake of Lennon's remarks that The Beatles meant more to some fans than Jesus.

[lug]

What do you mean by "something of substance," and why should your definition/standard of substance be the one that Artist A, Artist Q, or The Artist Formerly Known As The Artist X subscribes to before opening his mouth? One person's substance may be another person's excrement, so to speak.

And if people believe those dumbass statements just because they're made by famous people, more is the pity.

I'm a big free speech fan, but that's one of the downsides of it, for sure.

 

The laws of Free Speech are the only reason I'm even allowed to record my MP3's.

[jeremy c]

This entire thread started because of an interview of an actor by a BBC journalist known for his abrasive interviewing style.

 

Brand was invited to be a guest editor at a British political periodical. His remarks in the journal led to him be invited on the BBC show.

 

This actor at one time had his own tv talk show.

 

It seems as if some people in England think he is qualified to talk about politics.

 

Did he interrupt the filming of one of the many movies he was in to give a political speech rather than to play his role in the film? I don't think so.

 

What does any of this have to do with music?

 

The easiest way to combine music and politics is to play a concert which benefits some cause.

 

When a musician plays a benefit, he or she is obviously combining music and politics. If you go to a benefit concert, don't you expect to hear something about the cause?

 

If a journalist then interviews the musicians about why this concert was given, isn't the musician supposed to answer?

 

[jcadmus]

 

If a journalist then interviews the musicians about why this concert was given, isn't the musician supposed to answer?

 

Of course. It would just be nice if what they had to say was informed, relevant and consistent with their own behavior.

 

"...and that's why I think it's important that we do something about climate change right now. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a private jet waiting to take me to my 20,000 square foot villa built on land cleared from a rain forest."

[rumpelstiltskin.]

It would just be nice if what they had to say was informed, relevant and consistent with their own behavior.

 

presumably you're speaking for yourself. i would die of embarrassment if someone whose music and politics i respect did not live up to the informal ministry of culture's high standards for political content.

 

 

The laws of Free Speech are the only reason I'm even allowed to record my MP3's.

 

until someone dies from listening. then you will be ripe for silencing. actually, i'm kind of shocked that hasn't happened already.

[jcadmus]

presumably you're speaking for yourself.

 

 

Who else would I be speaking for?