Jump to content


Please note: You can easily log in to MPN using your Facebook account!

Why are so many musicians politically left-leaning?


Recommended Posts

What strikes me is how small the sins of our politicians are now compared to say...oh...pulling a few out of my hat...kennedy, johnson, nixon and vietnam_THAT_is curruption there. Our curruption now is different, theres all these special interests, and fewer mass graves thank god. In past generations our curruptrion was paid for in OUR blood(as an american). Now its played out in secret cia wars, international wage slavery, narco colonialism etc. Think about kosovo, 30 years ago that would have been messey for the US, but now we just fly in the airpower launch a few missiles etc. Its still "messy", godawful the suffering and brutality.

 

Ive come to a large realisation. The perception of a politician is mostly due to their ability to lie. Clinton, great Liar. Reagan, great liar. Bush's, bad liars. Carter Bad Liar. Or at least Bush JR has bad writers. But I really think the secret to success in politics is your ability to lie through your teeth.Clintons writers were much better than bush jr., and he'd lie like nothing; everybody knew it but they still wanted more. It was entertainment, it blended in seamlessly with Fergie and Robert Downy Jr. the JFK Jr.,OJ, Jean Binet, Di and all other non newswprthy BS that litters the airwaves. Both sides lie constantly and blatantly and basically do whatever they want generally to please special interests.

 

This message has been edited by mr. rob on 07-18-2001 at 12:56 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites



  • Replies 182
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Originally posted by Anderton:

(originally posted by me) <>

 

Craig responds:

 

The right, of course, claims that the media is biased in favor of the left. The fringes claim it's run by Zionists. The left says that the media is overwhelmingly conservative.

 

Personally, I think the media is in business to make money, and has the political conscience of a ferret.

 

Agreed with your assessment.

 

But on the question of the politics of the news media, there is actual, empirical research on the political opinions and positions of journalists, editors, execs, etc. The "liberal media" claim is pretty much a myth, except in very select circumstances. it's not that the U.S. media are conservative, it's that media coverage tends to be "centrist" overall to avoid charges of bias -- not exactly about making $$, but about credibility and professional ethos -- at least in the U.S., where people have become accustomed to seeing papers as politically "neutral".

 

As for journalists, surveys of journalists tend to find them liberal (note that liberal and left are not the same thing) on civil liberties and conservative on economic issues.

 

This is based actual research by people who know what they're doing, rather than pundits on opinion pages heaping accusations. Happy to provide cites if people are actually interested -- I teach about this stuff for a living.

 

Best,

--JES

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boy, I go up to the mountains to get away for a few days, and this pops up. Great thread, and I've really enjoyed reading everyone's posts. I'm glad it hasn't turned into a slugfest, and I certainly hope my comments don't change that! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

I took the test, and I came in about two squares from center, towards the right, and two squares from the center line, towards libertarian. I agree with the comments regarding the ambiguity of these labels of "left / right" and "liberal / conservative".

 

I'm a musician, from a non-musical family. My family is somewhat split between those who vote Democrat and those who vote Republican, with somewhat more of them who vote Republican. Most of my family has been financially successful, and we've certainly had our share of traditionally "Republican" occupations - cops, military, business owners, etc.

 

I'm also a small business owner, who makes "less than 100 K a year". In many ways, I follow my mother's advice when voting: I NEVER vote "party line". As Mom always told me, "vote for the person who best represents your views and that you feel will do the best job". I've always considered that to be good advice.

 

Yes, I'm a registered Republican. Why? Because that party best represents my views in many ways. I'm not always in perfect agreement with that party, but when it comes to the two major parties in the USA, it most closely matches my views. I seem to be at odds in that respect with about 2/3rds of our clients, but I STRONGLY support the rights of others to opinions different than my own. I have no right to MY beliefs unless YOU have a right to a different one! And it is my sworn duty to support your rights to differ with my opinions, and that's different than actually supporting the opinion itself. Examples? Communism and Facism. I reject both political viewpoints, but support the rights of those who hold either viewpoint to peacefully pursue their political agendas.

 

Which brings me to the two party system. Last election, I actually voted for a Libertarian, as well as someone from the Constitution party ( http://www.constitutionparty.com/), which is pretty far to the right for a lot of people. I also voted for one Democrat, and the rest were Republicans. I wish there was more options available, but I can see the downside to that as well - No offense to anyone from a Nation where this happens, but coalition governments don't seem to be the best solution either. Many people in the USA vote Dem. or Repub. because they feel a vote for a third party is throwing away your vote. In some cases, I think that's true - in a very close race where I'm selecting from "the lesser of two evils" and the bigger evil looks like they might win, I'd hesitate to vote third party, but otherwise, I try to vote my beliefs.

 

IMO, the important thing is the US Constitution. Regarding that, I'm VERY conservative. Don't screw around with it. Don't be revisionist with history. Want to know what Madison, Jefferson, et al were thinking? It's no big secret - there's lots of writings (Federalist Papers, etc).

 

The Bill of Rights is sancroset. ALL of it. I cherish FREEDOM, which is not exactly in line with the overly authoritive image a lot of Republicans have. And IMO, musicians tend to want to be free to do as they wish. Maybe that's why many musicians tend to "lean left" - they think that it's the direction that will give them the most freedom.

 

So, in that way, I line up with the Libertarian views on a lot of things. Legalize Pot? Well, personally I think abuse of ANYTHING is bad, but if someone wants to do that, it's fine with me. As long as you don't do it and drive or something to where it effects MY saftey and freedoms. IOW, I feel we should be free to do as we please, until those freedoms infringe on the rights of others.

 

I also agree with a lot of the opinions of the Constitution party... I'm not for the "New World Order" or any use of US troops under foreign command, and am absolutely against UN or EC attempts to override US Constitutional provisions such as those contained in the Bill of Rights. But I think they sometimes tend to push their views at the expense of the views of others, and I find that disturbing.

 

I can't say why musicians tend to be left of center on average, but in my experience, that seems to be the case, although I find there's more right leaning musicians than many might think. IMO, there's no single political party that is 100% right or wrong. So I'll continue to vote for those who I feel will best represent my views and who I think will do the best job.

 

Phil O'Keefe

Sound Sanctuary Recording

Riverside CA

http://members.aol.com/ssanctuary/index.html

pokeefe777@msn.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as political spectrum and music goes I am a little bit of everything. I have a hard time beliving that there are that many people that are true left or true right. One thing that I have definitly learned while playing music is there is no constants, many styles, and too many damn purists that think that their form of music is the only one. I think this applys to everything that we come into contact with in everyday life.

 

I don't think that anything should come down to black and white or yes or no. It would get so unbelivably boorish that life just wouldnt be fun anymore. Hard facts arnt intresting its the grey shades inbetween that get you going.

 

So for me music didnt make me left wing, I think music put me right in the middle where I am comfortable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<>

 

Jim is still writing for Keyboard and still uncovering cool music...maybe it's time for you to re-subscribe!

 

He also edits most of my articles before they appear in print, and excels at tracking down loose ends...a trait you've no doubt discovered for yourself if you've read any of his equipment reviews. I don't think anyone who believes that magazines are lap dogs of manufacturers would think that of Keyboard if they read what Jim has to say.

 

Where were we...oh yes...politics. This is a fascinating thread, and I found the comments on statistics regarding liberal/conservative media informative. FYI the idea that most media people are liberal on social issues but conservative on economic issues means, I think, that they truly are representative of the American people. Clinton tapped into that with great success.

 

He also played sax. Hmmmm...I wonder what instrument George Bush 2.0 plays?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am surprised at the number of posts that have a negative view of our political system. There seems to be so much pessimism, and the belief that there is no real difference between the parties in Congress. Well, I'm going to say that our political system absolutely works, and that there are certainly identifiable, notable differences between them. Just because we don't agree with all the viewpoints of our Senators or Representatives, doesn't mean it doesn't work. The fact that we all have different viewpoints is the reason our government is set up the way it is.

 

If our Congressional members were any more hard-core liberal or conservative, they would not be elected, except in rare instances. Without being elected, they can't serve anyone - they would basically have a constituency of none. That is the reason why there is so much overlap in thought between the two parties, because in order to get elected and actually accomplish anything while they are in office, they've got to temper the extremes of their beliefs. Sure, you can argue, that a more liberal or conservative stance is more consistent with your own beliefs, but the truth of the matter is that would just take your candidate that much further from most everyone else. NOW what chance have you got to have your agenda implemented?

 

Extremes in political belief, have their real power in the possibility of nudging the mainstream one way or another, but a politician who is an untethered extremist is just commiting political suicide.

 

Sure, none of us are completely happy with the way things are, but our system DOES work. Pass a law that I favor, and you'd better believe that someone else disagrees, and that's why we can't all have things the way we want. The best we can hope for is that when a majority votes for something, we all go along with it. It's not what everyone wants, but it IS what the majority wants. And hopefully along the way, all the really, really bad ideas got thrown out. We're not all going to be happy, but the system absolutely did what it was supposed to do.

 

This message has been edited by EWF on 07-18-2001 at 04:12 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

actually it doesnt work. the country has been at a standstill for quite sometime. it looked quite dangerous a few months ago when republicans had control... then that dude jumped ship. how weird is that?

 

the two party system is ridiculous. there should be NO partys and people elected for their stances and what they ACTUALLY DO. you start out local and move your way up. but localization is almost lost now. capitol hill doesnt know jack about whats going on locally around the country yet their decisions affect my local existance and they just eat away at my paycheck and then deciding to take more so i can MAYBE get it back when im old... WTF is that? im just gonna pay for baby boomers and then see jack squat when i hit 65. i should decide what i do with my money [sounds republican right?] too bad thats a big fat lie. they bloat the government just like the democrats. instead of spending it on welfare they spend it on warfare... save a life or kill a life. which is more evil?

 

take the drug war. the majority of americans are voting in MANY areas to AT LEAST make medical marijuana legal. california even started up dealing but the feds stepped in and said no. in DC, they voted it through but congress voided the proposition. is this really something that should be decided by the federal government?

 

everybody was all up in clintons face about the whole monica bit basically entertaining america. what does that have to do with running the country? nothing. what pisses me off is exactly what rold commented on. fucking talking about how pot should probably be legal AFTER he leaves office while the whole time in office, he had to push away from his "i didnt inhale" lie [yeah, we knew then he was lying too, mutherfucker got high plenty of times] i for one am sick of wasting tax dollars [my money] on the drug war, you just cant win it... EVER. should i mention that a republican from the midwest was pushing for the death penalty for drug dealers? his own son was caught dealing pot and coke. daddy got him off with house arrest. come on dude, he should die. daddy wanted to put a bill through to kill his own son.

 

politicians are PUSSIES. none have to balls to really CHANGE anything. then you got john mccain who wants campaign finance reform so people cant just buy seats like that guy up in NJ, but not too long ago he put a rider on the budget to auction radio frequencies to the highest bidder instead of the best candidate... further destroying localization. now we all can be forcefed monopolistic corporations one trick ponies homogenizing our existance.

 

what can you do.

alphajerk

FATcompilation

"if god is truly just, i tremble for the fate of my country" -thomas jefferson

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by DC:

I used to visit Plymoth England from time to time and they have a 'town artist.' He literally 'paints the town' with large murials and such and the town supports him. He can walk into any resturant (I guess like cops can around here) and receive a meal and a local business has donated him a flat so he's got a place to crash. They also buy all his paint and brushes for him.

 

...

 

The left supports art for art's sake as well.

 

What if I moved to that town and, despite my dubious drawing skills, said that *I* wanted to be a town painter too? Would they support me?

 

What if 10,000 other people moved to that town, all with varying degrees of artistic skill, and said they wanted to be town painters too? Would the town still support art for art's sake then? Or would artists be turned away or told that their skills would be of better use to the community in a different capacity?

 

Since art is *so* subjective, I have a problem with any government deciding which artists are and aren't going to be supported by tax dollars. Surely there are worthy artists who deserve government financial support but don't receive it and others who are getting governmental financial support but who don't deserve it. The lists of "who deserves it" and "who doesn't deserve it" are likely to vary from person to person. How can you turn something subjective into something objective in this situation? It's not like you could make a determination based on income, like you could with welfare.

 

Besides, I also don't understand why most artists would want the help anyway -- if a true artist's attitude is supposed to be free-thinking and supposedly always questioning authority, why would they want some sort of government giving them grants? It kind of runs counter to everything (I think) an true 100% bonifide artist should stand for, doesn't it?

 

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-18-2001 at 07:52 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by jtegan@tiac.net:

...As you get older and your brain's ability to function decreases you get more conservative.

 

Talk about stereotyping generalizations...this is a real winner! What scientific study did this load of spam come from?

 

********************

 

Originally posted byAnderton:

That's because the labels are meaningless.

 

In resonse to:

<< I've often wondered why many folks DON'T like to openly state who they are for or what "side" they are on...but prefer to "straddle the fence" or be vague about it.>>

 

I agree, but we all are SO HUNG UP on sticking labels on everything...this entire thread is based on that fact...don't you think so Craig? http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

 

********************

 

Originally posted by Jim Aikin:

Ya know, I have never understood Hillary-bashing. Maybe somebody can explain it to me. This woman went to Washington and tried her best to get meaningful health care reform enacted. She stuck by her husband in spite of his being exposed (repeatedly) as a world class pussy hound. So why do people insist on demonizing her? Clue me in, please.

 

Yes Jim, I agreeyou need some clues about Hillary.

 

"meaningful health care enacted"...just a pipe dream that was not based on too many real facts...that's why the whole thing went down the toilet before she even "finished her sentence", if it really WAS meaningful AND realistic...it would have flown.

 

"stuck by her husband"...awww come on Jim...do we need to resurrect Tammy Wynette to sing a few bars..."stand by your man, la da da..." http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

She "stuck by her husband" because it was POLITICALLY in HER best interest to do so...PERIOD!!!

 

And now, that carpetbagging bitch had to come to my state to pursue her political ambitions. She is just counting the days...she couldn't give a SHIT about being "the junior senator from NY"...she has her eyes BACK on the White House, and she has had them there from DAY ONE...what a fake she has been all along. She still has Whitewater/Vince Foster dirt under her fingernails as she continues to claw her way to the top.

 

But Naaa...she's really a fine lady, sincere and honest to the bone. You want her...PLEASE take her to your state (as long as it isn't NY)!!! http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

This message has been edited by miroslav on 07-18-2001 at 08:43 AM

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i'm glad our government "doesn't work" because look what happens when it does.

 

i dissent from alphajerk slightly, though, in that republicans don't supplant welfare with warfare. they believe in welfare, just not for individuals; i call it corporate welfare. they call "top-side" or "trickle-down" economics. executives stay rich the whole time, but when things go south again, who gets the pink slip and who gets another fat grant from uncle sam?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

 

Originally posted by jtegan@tiac.net:

...As you get older and your brain's ability to function decreases you get more conservative.

 

> Talk about stereotyping generalizations...this is a real winner! What scientific study did this load of spam come from?

 

There are plenty of scientific studies noting the decline of mental ability with ageing. Do you really need me to reference any? Tthere is a real life correlation with declining mental abilities and age. I believe that the positive correlation with declining mental abilities and increasing conservatism with increased age might underlie a causative relation. Certainly, my observation is at least as sensible as Churchill's and probably more scientific, and makes for ann appropriate parody of thowe who believe that Churchillian nonsense.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey jtegan...you're repeating yourself. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif

 

No argument about aging and decreased mental ability...but a switch to conservatism as a philosophy becasue of it...???

 

Maybe older people are more conservative in their general lifestyle because...things get a bit "closer to the edge"...you know what I mean? You drive a little slower, watch what you eat...etc.

But you can still be "forward thinking" and a "free spirit" at heart even if you are 90!

 

Come on now...are you saying Bill Clinton is going to end up a conservative in about 20 years... http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/smile.gif

miroslav - miroslavmusic.com

 

"Just because it happened to you, it doesn't mean it's important."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The inimitable Jesse Ventura, governor of my state, baffles, mocks and infuriates the local liberals AND conservatives with great even-handedness. This is why a lot of us Minnesotans admire him, and why he will be re-elected as long as he wishes. Who else has busted out of the "two-parties-only" paradigm?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by popmusic:

What if I moved to that town and, despite my dubious drawing skills, said that *I* wanted to be a town painter too? Would they support me?

 

What if 10,000 other people moved to that town, all with varying degrees of artistic skill, and said they wanted to be town painters too? Would the town still support art for art's sake then?

 

No. But that doesn't mean the whole system of community supported artists is unworkable. See below.

 

Besides, I also don't understand why most artists would want the help anyway -- if a true artist's attitude is supposed to be free-thinking and supposedly always questioning authority, why would they want some sort of government giving them grants? It kind of runs counter to everything (I think) an true 100% bonifide artist should stand for, doesn't it?

 

Well... only if you continue to think of "government", "authority" and "community" the way we do now. What it takes to make community supported art work is a genuine commitment to the arts by the individuals in the community. That is, it must be acknowledged that art is necessary to a full human life and that being an artist or musician is a venerable trade. Nearly every culture prior to ours has had that level of commitment, but what we've basically done is devalued everything that can't be valued in dollars.

 

In India or Nepal for example, if you are recognized as a master musician, you don't ever have to worry about anything from childhood on. People serve you food and care for you, and you can devote your life to studying and playing music. How is one "recognized"? By their peers. Already recognized masters choose their successors. They know these individuals personally and can recognize that they have talent. Of course it isn't a perfect system for everyone - there are those who aspire to be masters who will not be chosen. But overall the people who ARE chosen deserve it, and the rest can still pursue music as a "hobby" and still have quite a lot of time for it because most Indians don't work as many hours as we do. There are numerous festivals throughout the year where music is played, so "amateurs" are able to play publicly. People spend hours making costumes and decorating their villages for the festivals. And it seems there is a festival or holiday at LEAST once a month! No one works on festival days either.

 

In most African countries there are even more "professional" musicians. This in a place where even the "average" citizen is highly musical. If the community is committed to having a lot of art and music for its citizens, there are opportunities to pursue it for everyone. Not everyone will be able to make a living at it, but if the arts are not considered "frivolous" and so rigorously separated from the "utilitarian" aspects of life, most people would still find adequate time and opportunity for artistic expression in their daily lives. Again, this is nothing new and has pretty much been the norm until now.

 

The problem, of course, is that we are not used to thinking in terms of "community" anymore. People don't tend to stay in one place, they are expected to relocate for job opportunities, few people inherit land or if they do they feel it's a better decision to sell it to the highest bidder than keep it. We mostly live in places where few people know us. "The government" is seen by us as faceless people not to be trusted, and indeed they are, because they govern a huge nation-state and they do not know you as an individual or care about you. If you grew up in a well established community where you could be educated by people you knew, and were "governed" by people you knew, and employed by people you knew who could foster your individual talents (as used to be the case and still is in some places, the words "government" and "business" would not have the negative connotations they do now.

 

I really do think the problems we face have more to do with scale than style of government. I would prefer to see a mosaic of small communities which each have a great deal of power to govern themselves how they please. I would think if that were the case, more people would be able to find a community where they fit in and their particular talents are needed.

 

Yes, there will always be maverick artists regardless, who question the mores of their society. Some societies are more tolerant of such dissenters than others of course. And no society can guarantee a perfect life for every individual. But fercryinoutloud, the U.S. is the richest country in the world and we have the least regard for artists. Our streets should be FILLED with beauty, great art and music. Instead they're filled with strip malls and electronic muzak. Any so-called Third World country can and mostly does do better than that. Pretty sad.

 

--Lee

 

This message has been edited by Lee Flier on 07-18-2001 at 10:26 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dino, please. FOX may look ultra conservative to you, but that's because they actually give the conservative viewpoint equal time. I dare you to watch MSNBC, CNN, CBS, ABC and find similar respect for the conservative view.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

How is one "recognized"? By their peers. Already recognized masters choose their successors. They know these individuals personally and can recognize that they have talent. Of course it isn't a perfect system for everyone - there are those who aspire to be masters who will not be chosen. But overall the people who ARE chosen deserve it, and the rest can still pursue music as a "hobby" and still have quite a lot of time for it because most Indians don't work as many hours as we do.

 

I still don't totally get it. In popular music, you could say a very similar thing, that musicians are chosen by their peers. I mean, the stuff that gets on the radio and MTV... Sure, there are loads of marketing dollars behind it, but in the end, the "chosen ones" come down to who have been "picked" by the public (yes, it's like being "picked" from a limited selection and everything, and the reasons for being picked aren't always musical, but that's another thread...). For every talented "chosen one", there are still many, many others with TONS of talent who will never have their music heard by more than a relative few. That's just how things work.

 

What I'm getting at is, in any size society, there is a somewhat built-in limit of how many "chosen artists" there can be, if that's your goal as an artist.

 

In a small village, if everybody decided they wanted to be a financially-compensated artist, it would never work... The money's got to come from *somewhere*. There are talented people who are going to be left behind (so to speak)... There will always be the majority who will not have the opportunity to be recognized by their peers on as wide of a scale as the "chosen" ones. It doesn't matter if it's a capitalistic or socialist society -- not everybody will have the opportunity to be financially rewarded for their musical talent.

 

Part of the problem, like you said, is the scale of what we're talking about. So we could theoretically discuss how smaller communities and government *should* support art... But I'd rather ignore the theoretical and discuss things in terms of what *could* be done with what we've got.

 

I don't see how taking a socialist view of the arts would make anything better than what we have now. Some orchestras, contemporary composers, jazz artists, and Broadway composers get grants from the government to make music... Shouldn't some kickass blues guitarist *also* get a grant? What about someone who's doing techno music? What about a Zydeco accordionist? What about a new age artist? What about '50s-style MOR pop vocalist?

 

All of these are forms of music are part of our culture. Whether you enjoy these styles of music or not, most reasonable people would agree these are all valid forms of music, and generally take as much skill to become good at as being a classical or jazz musician.

 

I think it's silly how our society talks in reverential tones about classical music, and to a lesser extent, jazz... True, there's a lot of great music in those styles (and there's a lot of it that I like), but is it inherently "more deserving" of government financial funding than other styles? And who gets to decide which forms of music are "more worthy" than others?

 

 

 

 

This message has been edited by popmusic on 07-18-2001 at 11:29 AM

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be brief cause you didn't ask for my newsletter...good, cause

don't have one. I married a communist, born in the former East

Germany. She really misses a lot of things about it, like universal

day care and health coverage. Still, she's realistic enough to

recognize that it couldn't go on forever, as if from some

inexhaustible spring of money. Just can't help wishing we did a

little better job for the people in the US though.

 

Myewseeshuns, well, they don't but a few have access to the power

and funding that would enable them to thrive. Plenty of us want it,

down in our greedy little hearts. But we'd prefer not to have to

go cap in hand, or under the desk, to the established wallets for

a stipend so we can provide muzak at their daughter's wedding, or the

artistic equivalent. So, it's forgivable perhaps if some of us find

fault with a system that values our best contributions enough to

let us starve to death and blame us for it.

 

Please don't hit me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by popmusic:

I still don't totally get it. In popular music, you could say a very similar thing, that musicians are chosen by their peers. I mean, the stuff that gets on the radio and MTV... Sure, there are loads of marketing dollars behind it, but in the end, the "chosen ones" come down to who have been "picked" by the public

 

Hold on... I said musicians are picked by recognized masters, NOT "the public".

 

In other words, instead of record company execs picking who gets signed, the musicians pick them. Say Paul McCartney gets to pick a young guitarist or songwriter (or two) who will succeed him. Maybe he also gets to pick an old blues cat he admired that never received due credit for what he did.

 

Now of course the complaint will be that Paul McCartney can't possibly hear all the musicians whom he might like or feel are deserving. He's someone who is recognized worldwide. But if each SMALL COMMUNITY has a group of musicians that are generally respected, and THEY get to choose young people who receive a living allowance for what they do, then that is a fairer system. Not perfect, but better than what we've got.

 

What I'm getting at is, in any size society, there is a somewhat built-in limit of how many "chosen artists" there can be, if that's your goal as an artist. Not everybody is going to be financially compensated for being an artist, whether it's a capitalistic or socialist society.

 

Yes, no disagreement there. However, right now there are an extreme few "artists", not all of whom are genuinely talented, who make huge sums of money while most of the rest can never hope to earn a living. I do believe that can be improved upon if the average citizen is really committed to appreciating the arts. Of course that starts with education and most arts programs are being cut because the country is run by politicians whose campaign money comes from big business, who don't give a rat's ass about the arts... so there you have it. We are living in a plutocracy, not a democracy or a republic.

 

Part of the problem, like you said, is the scale of what we're talking about. So we could theoretically discuss how smaller communities and government *should* support art... But I'd rather ignore the theoretical and discuss things in terms of what *could* be done with what we've got.

 

So would I, but I just don't know if much of anything can be done. The current system is simply inherently fucked. It's like if you built a plane that, according to the laws of aerodynamics, would never fly, but a bunch of people invested a bunch of time and money in it and so they all say "Well, in theory, we could build an airplane that actually follows the laws of physics, but I'd rather ignore the theoretical and discuss what can be done with what we've got." It'll never happen - the plane will never fly, and nobody wants to just cut their losses and start over.

 

I think about the only thing we can do is take the time to expose kids to music on a volunteer basis. Offer to perform at schools for free and talk to kids afterward about music. Support charities like VH1's Save the Music which provides music education and instruments for schools whose music budgets have been cut. And to whatever extent you can, bring it to the attention of your local government and media what a shameful thing it is that we don't have more support for the arts, that kids can't pursue music at school. Work to change the value system at the individual level.

 

If kids grow up to become adults who demand better, it will happen eventually. In our own lifetime, I seriously doubt it.

 

--Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Lee Flier:

I really do think the problems we face have more to do with scale than style of government. I would prefer to see a mosaic of small communities which each have a great deal of power to govern themselves how they please. I would think if that were the case, more people would be able to find a community where they fit in and their particular talents are needed.

 

interesting, lee, because that is how america started, and is the environment for which our political system was designed. it was specifically crafted as a republic to serve many small democracies. any advocate of democracy 250 years ago would agree that democracy only works on a small level, but is truly the most equitable system.

 

i also think that the vast, national way of thinking is causing a great deal of harm, not only polticially, but culturally. drive two or three hours in any direction and you will be faced with a different climate, landscape, local economy, language dialect, and et. al. than that from which you started. but we expect our political solutions to apply the same to all of these people? and we expect best buy and circuit city and wal mart to be there and sell the same products as anywhere else? and the music is the same? i don't understand it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thomas Jefferson thought that there should be a revolution every so often to shake things up. Maybe it's time. I don't mean violence, but vote out the old guard, elect new people, DEMAND THAT THINGS CHANGE AND DON'T ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO. Everyone should act to change things in their local area and in time, this will change the system we have.

 

 

 

------------------

KJ

-------------------

bari man low

KJ

-------------------

"50 million Elvis Presley fans can't be all wrong" - John Prine

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by alphajerk:

what pisses me off is exactly what rold commented on. fucking talking about how pot should probably be legal AFTER he leaves office while the whole time in office, he had to push away from his "i didnt inhale" lie [yeah, we knew then he was lying too, mutherfucker got high plenty of times] i for one am sick of wasting tax dollars [my money] on the drug war, you just cant win it... EVER.

 

What really ticks me off about the whole Clinton/Mary Jane thing is that he actually was *joking* about it on the Arcenio Hall show shortly after he was elected. Clinton was asked about how he learned to play sax, and he said something along the lines of "hey, how do you think I learned how to inhale?" I shit you not. So pretty much, he was laughing about how silly it was that he had done marijuana before, yet, he still went on to enforce these harsh drug possession penalties along with his partner in crime, Gore, who has also admitted to doing bud before. So the message that they sent to the world was marijuana is okay to do long as you don't get caught and who knows, you might end up running the country some day and will put people just like yourself in jail. What a crock! If someone wants to fight the war on drugs then fine, although it's a total waste of time and money. But in the process don't act all high (no pun intended) and almighty if you yourself are using them or have used them in the past.

 

-Dylan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by KJ:

...DEMAND THAT THINGS CHANGE AND DON'T ACCEPT THE STATUS QUO. Everyone should act to change things in their local area and in time, this will change the system we have.

 

grassroots! it's the way things get done. over the past couple years, you've maybe noticed the paradigm shift in issues like the drug war and social security, in that we collectively no longer seem to believe in them? that is a policy that has been advocated on a grassroots level by the libertarian party since at least 1996, when i first became aware of them.

 

grassroots works, and maybe we, as musicians can employ the same tactics to our industry, our marketplace...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a thing here in Virginia called Boys State, sponsored by various conservative organizations, molding young people to be tomorrows Republicans. In theory it's non-political oriented, in practice...it's a bootcamp for ultra-right wing mindsets. My son was chosen in his junior year to go because of his grade point average, member of national honor society, and other accomplishments. He is pretty liberal in thought and actions, so it was a major shock when he got there. It was a weeklong indoctrination, and every speaker (Lt Gov, Sec of State, etc) was from the Virginia Republican Party. When my son voiced opposition to some of their teachings he was excluded from alot of activities that would place him in a position to speak. He did learn alot about government, but only solidified his previous notions of the intent of the Republican Party.

I think we are seeing a slow demise of both parties. And it's becoming clearer every day that the two party system is ineffective. We have this baseball team mentality with our politics......so what if we have a crummy pitcher....I LOVE MY TEAM!!!!! Nobody will call a spade a spade. For instance the inability of the Democratic party to censure it's own members involved in those sexual scandals or to recognize individuals are responsible for their own actions, or the inability of the Repubs to admit the facts about our current prez and his "handed on a silver platter" existence. There are WAY more examples...sorry.

Why are more musicians socially conscious, or "left" leaning....because most came out of the have nots in this world. It really sickens me to see the fat cats of Washington vote on matters that affect millions of Americans, like Conservation, Stem Cell Research, Energy, etc.....when if these items were placed up for vote by the people, we would pass or reject these items in a 1000th of the time these suits spend on it. They are stealing from us and we let them. They are basically Republicrats and they are laughing all the way to the bank.

Down like a dollar comin up against a yen, doin pretty good for the shape I'm in
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by synaes:

grassroots works, and maybe we, as musicians can employ the same tactics to our industry, our marketplace...

 

I totally agree that grassroots organizing and action are vital -- but I can think of two factors that need to be taken into account.

 

First, you have to organize the right kind of action. Those farmers in the Klamath valley turning the irrigation water back on were engaged in grassroots civil disobedience. Trouble is, they're trying to grow crops in a desert, which is fundamentally insane. Their defiance of the federal government is admirable, but they're stuck in short-term, damn-the-future thinking. One of the reasons we need a federal government with some teeth is precisely so that local shortsightedness can be counterbalanced with a larger view. (Not that that happens very often....)

 

Second, treaties like NAFTA, and for that matter federal laws themselves, often make it difficult or impossible for locals to promulgate or enforce good regulations. Want to slap a heavy pollution tax on factories that operate in your county or state? I'm not a lawyer, but my bet is, you can't do it, because the feds have preempted that area of regulation.

 

When it comes to music and musicians, I'd love to see a grassroots movement to demand airtime for local indie artists on all of the stations across the dial. The FCC won't touch this, because of concerns about freedom of speech. The problem is, most stations are not owned or controlled locally, and are not accountable to local interests. As somebody once said, "Freedom of the press only applies to people who own one."

 

I'd love to see an organized, well-publicized boycott of radio stations that refuse to put local indie artists in their regular rotation. The only way to get them to change is when they see the Arbitron numbers dropping through the floor.

 

--JA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow! What a thread! Three pages in ONE DAY !! Is that some kind of record?

 

With all due respect, fet (post #5, 'way back' 3 pages ago and yesterday)...

Originally posted by fet:

Since the dawn of history, music and musicians have been associated with wildness, abandon, crazy behavior, sex, sensuality, etc. Music lowers people's inhibitions, and this is congruent with the political beliefs we have come to know as "left".

...who says so, beside you? Music encompasses MUCH more than rock, ya know. I don't think that stereotypical association fits the (tens of?) thousands of classical musicians who populate big and small symphony orchestras here and worldwide, as well as uncountable solo accompanists, ensemble groups, vocalists, union and non-union studio musicians, and small meat-and-potatoes combos that joyfully entertain in many small venues and restaurants then go home to sane family and community lifestyles also. I also don't recall scandalous wildness reports about the big band crews of Benny Goodman, The Dorseys, Mitch Miller, etc, and the millions of jazzsters who love their music more than most anything, though there were probably individual cases among them besides the ones we know about.

 

And your BIGGIE that prompted my reply _"Music lowers people's inhibitions"?_ Is this research verified somehow, or just an opinion? What we do know is that in general music fosters a sense of personal well-being, relaxes and invigorates at the same time (ever been "dog-tired" and hearing your favorite song started you bouncin' like a teenager?), makes attitudes more agreeable, and helps employees be more productive as long as it's not loudly distracting (I learned this first-hand 30 years ago as a fast-food manager). Music Therapy is even used in convalescent, rehabilitation and other healing scenarios. Just because a large segment of posters here may be 'hard rockers' doesn't mean that's the be-all and end all of modern music in ANY sense.

 

Another dimension is (many may not want to hear this) music carries a spirit, apart from any lyrics that may attend it. Just like discordant chords and strains are used intentionally in movie soundtracks to signal 'trouble or tragedy ahead' and you the viewer know it even before the peaceful movie scene it's all of a sudden playing under has ended, certain music, like "death metal" has a destructive spirit behind it (THEY (its proponents) named it 'DEATH metal', remember? ..not me).

 

As for moi (and back on topic) my concern for the common good of individuals and families (most of us came from one, remember?) have caused me to vote Republican, Democrat, Libertarian and Independent at different times - no pigeonholing here - and a few Independents I voted for have won. My attitude is I'm going to make music no matter who is in the big house, and no politician or policy can make me play better or worse, or stop me recording. That's up to me.

 

 

------------------

God loves You! Why not love Him back?

-- Music has miracle potential --
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by lovesinger:

Music encompasses MUCH more than rock, ya know. I don't think that stereotypical association fits the (tens of?) thousands of classical musicians who populate big and small symphony orchestras here and worldwide, as well as uncountable solo accompanists, ensemble groups, vocalists, union and non-union studio musicians, and small meat-and-potatoes combos that joyfully entertain in many small venues and restaurants then go home to sane family and community lifestyles also.

 

You are right about most classical musicians - they don't seem as crazy. http://www.musicplayer.com/ubb/biggrin.gif They are also not typically leftist. Same with a lot of the session guys. As for bands that play in restaurants, etc., yeah there are some who lead "sane" lifestyles and some that don't. However, if you're talking about original artists who spend most of their lives on tour, a lot of them lead very crazy lives, and I'm not just talking about rock musicians.

 

However, I don't equate wildness and abandon with any negative connotation either. One can be wild and abandoned and still have a great family/community life. One can also lead a "sane" lifestyle and be a miserable human being.

 

I also don't recall scandalous wildness reports about the big band crews of Benny Goodman, The Dorseys, Mitch Miller, etc, and the millions of jazzsters who love their music more than most anything...

 

I guess you haven't read much about them, then. The jazz, blues and folk guys were every bit as nutty as rockers are today and many of them were more so. Yes, there were exceptions, as there are exceptions in rock. But jazz and blues in their early days were considered to be extremely scandalous art forms in and of themselves, and the musicians accused of being agents of Satan, etc. Many of them did their best to live up to those accusations.

 

And I wouldn't call Mitch Miller a "jazzster". Stuff like his and Dorsey's is a good example of what can happen when you are afraid of the more, errhh, Dionysian element of music: it sounds like watered down crap compared to the real thing. Those guys were to real big band jazz as Kenny G is to modern jazz. Kenny G may be a nice, "sane" little guy but his music is about as daring as swimming in a kiddie wading pool. You need to be a little crazy to surf the big waves, but people should not be stopped from doing it just because some of us think they are crazy. Those are the people who push the limits of human ability.

 

--Lee

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yah, well... shucks, you make some good points, Lovesinger. Music can be whatever you want it to be. My point is that it often appeals to other portions of the human animal than its intellect. (IMHO, all of this.)

 

I think that if you play blues, rock, R&B, part of the GOAL is to loosen people's inhibitions. At least, this causes them to have a good time and forget their troubles. At most, this means irresponsible behavior in the various familiar modes many of us have enjoyed, and suffered, at different times in our lives. Certainly it did for me.

 

I still contend that a wild dancer, moving freely in transports of ecstatic rhythm, is not likely to be a Republican!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...