Speaking out
I was going to post this as a comment in response to standingout's comment on the post below, but it would make a better post. (Did you all follow that?)
I agree with Geldof--the Africa rally should stay apolitical. But here's a question.
Pretend we're all hanging out in a venue that's ostensibly a-political--we'll stick with concerts. Now when Pearl Jam or the Dixie Chicks or whoever speak out against Bush or the war, they're attacked as being unpatriotic, or, most relevant to this discussion, for using an inappropriate forum for their ideas.
So, how bad does a leader have to be before we start using apolitical areas to get the message out? Has there been any time in American history when this has been the case? I would argue yes--the Vietnam War, for example. And you can say "You paid money for your ticket to hear music, not to hear someone's opinion about politics," but...I don't know.
What do you think?
posted by CharlesPeirce @ 9:40 AM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I think it's acceptable for celebrities to use public forums to address political issues, but it needs to be done sensatively, and with some tact. I think most bands take it way too far. It's one thing to say you're upset about it, but unless you're trying to tick people off, you need to do it in a way that focuses on uniting both sides of an issue rather than disregarding the opinion of those against you and blindly condemning a world leader. When Eddie Vedder put a mask of GW on a mic stand and trashed it with his guitar, that was a good example of exactly the wrong way to go about using the public forum. Unless he was trying to make people mad at him, and then I suppose he got what he wanted.
I guess it all comes down to the objective. If you're trying to get people to listen and consider what you're saying, be reasonable. If you're trying to mobilize those who already agree by enflaming their anger, then act like the Dixie Chicks or Pearl Jam or the rest. I personaly would try to tactfully let people know where I stand and save the really out spoken complaining for a website or less-public forum.
When performing a conctert musicians become entertainers, performers. You're not just paying for the music. You're paying for the show on stage, the fun of seeing the music played live, and whatever dialogue the performers have between songs. If a group wants to be political they have every right to do so. They should be aware of ramifications, though. As with any entertainer, if you say things that offend people they will most likely never pay to see you again. Its not an attempt at censorship, its just a matter of not wanting to pay for something that is offensive rather than entertaining. Historically music has been a big way that revolutionaries spread their message -- especially in Latin America. And when a government truly is oppressive, people will want to hear this message, and most people don't get mad at the musicians for saying it. When its just politics, like in the US, you generally will just have people split down their party lines. Performers should be aware that if you speak out against a party you are probably going to lose the patronage of most of that party's members. When that party makes up about 50% of the population, as is the case with both of our major parties, you should consider just how bad the gov is, and if its really worth speaking about. People are entitled to their opinions, thats the beauty of democracy. If their opinions offend you, don't pay for them -- that's the beauty of capitalism. In the case of radio stations, if they want to 'boycott' a band because they don't like the band's message, that's their right. If you don't like it, boycott the station, that's your right.
From a musician's point of view (This is strictly conjecture- as I neither create or am involved in music), publicizing your political viewpoint is often the best way to attract people to your music- especially if you are trying to pass yourself off as counterculture. The problem is when your message doesn't match your fan base. The Dixie Chicks made a mistake in criticizing Bush in front of an audience of middle income, rural, white families and I suppose a band like Phish or Dave Matthews could do the same were they suddenly to endorse conservatism, sobriety... or bathing. Most bands understand this and publicize their message accordingly.
Also, political statements are used as a publicity tool by some artists who are no longer mainstream. An example would be KRS-One, who "cheered 9/11" because [World Trade Center security guards routinely stopped black people from entering] "because of the way we talk and dress. So when the planes hit the building, we were like, 'Mmmm -- justice.' [9/11] doesn't affect us. 9/11 happened to them, not us. The rich . . . those who are oppressing us. RCA or BMG, Universal, the radio stations."
No matter what they say, I can't believe any mainstream music is still "about the music", it's about moving as many records as possible- and politics can help.
Post a Comment
<< Home