Does anyone else get annoyed when...

[Lyrica]

music is made of melody, rhythm, harmony, and lyrics. lyrics are words. words are meant to convey ideas. if political ideas are off the table, then what's next? would you rather listen to brittany spears sing about how much of a bad girl she is? or other such empty headed fluff? i like political songs. if they are done well. that doesn't mean i don't like non political songs, but they also have to be done well.

and if a band uses their presence and mojo in order to champion a cause, even without writing about it, then more power to them. if i dont' subscribe to their cause, i will simply say, "that's nice" and then wait for the music. unless of course they're rabid about it, then i might get a little annoyed. but music is meant to convey a message, and if they have to convey the message before or after the music, then that' alright too.

 

[Lyrica]

dbl post

 

[GuitarToneFreak]

Then... Don't... Listen... To... That... Artist's... Music?

I think its ridiculous that apparently a good number of people here think artists should only sing about certain things... Actually that explains the KISS infatuation..

And I don't, I just think it's stupid. I don't buy their records and complain about them, I find it very easy to avoid political bands for the most part.

I do like bands like KISS, I listen to music to have a good time. Not to listen to a bunch of millionaires tell me what's wrong with the world, just my .02

 

[Roberteaux]

I agree with what Phil and Nicole said... except to add that things do sometimes come to be a bit more cynically commercial and schtick-like than the pure idealism they sometimes purport to be. If an artist realizes that his popular appeal is to be found within a certain identifiable group, is it any wonder that he or she might then begin to pander to that group? They make millions of dollars that way, you know.

I always did like Charlie Patton better than Woody Guthrie...

I grew tired of the whole political song thing back when John Lennon went solo and started his working class hero routine. Sometimes enough is enough, and I don't tend to form my political theses via what some rock star has to say to begin with. Maybe they give me a heads-up sometimes, but I don't exactly craft my world around whatever they're selling. And believe me: they are selling stuff out there. Peter, Paul, and Mary had it right.

But, on the other hand, I really do NOT wish to hear Britney Spears singing about the cheesecake casserole life of a bad little rich girl... poor baby. I'd take Woody Guthrie singing about Joe Hill before Britney and her overwrought cooch any day.

Not to say that somebody needs to squelch her. She does have fans in abundance... and they can have her all to themselves.

But really: I mainly love the blues.

--R

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

What do they preach and not practice?

Do they make a profit off their merchandise and touring? Are they practicing capitalism?

Green Day sucks? Nah, you just don't like them... there is a difference.

I'm pretty sure that when he said they suck he was expressing an opinion. At least, that's how I take when some speaks in that manner.

music is made of melody, rhythm, harmony, and lyrics. lyrics are words. words are meant to convey ideas. if political ideas are off the table, then what's next? would you rather listen to brittany spears sing about how much of a bad girl she is? or other such empty headed fluff? i like political songs. if they are done well. that doesn't mean i don't like non political songs, but they also have to be done well.

and if a band uses their presence and mojo in order to champion a cause, even without writing about it, then more power to them. if i dont' subscribe to their cause, i will simply say, "that's nice" and then wait for the music. unless of course they're rabid about it, then i might get a little annoyed. but music is meant to convey a message, and if they have to convey the message before or after the music, then that' alright too.

There's certainly a middle ground between being told what to think by a catchy song, and being entertained by vacuous tripe. I prefer that middle ground where I'm not being told what to think, and also not being told not to think, and my preference isn't taking anything "off the table".

Quite frankly, I prefer to inform myself politically from people who are knowledgeable in the matter at hand, and too often musicians latch onto causes without thinking about the deeper issues at hand. A prime example was Geldof and USA for Africa. They organized a bunch of charity for a region obviously suffering, but because of political naivete they funneled their food through the government in power, which then parceled out the aid in such a manner as to reward its supporters and starve its opponents. These governments which handled the aid, and parceled it out, were autocratic in nature, and completely bamboozled Geldof/USAfA . No one mentioned that these were autocracies at Live Aid, now did they? No one mentioned that they were funneling the aid through one side of a conflict, now did they?

As a result, mant well-intentioned people ended up supporting a brutal regime in Ethiopia.

No, politics and music make for shitty bedfellows, and to be honest, I'm suspicious of anyone who deigns to tell me what I should think, by instinct, no matter what they preach.

Also, I think that that is a rather shallow treatment for a medium that has the potential to reach deep inside a person (even without words, at all) to speak to the human condition. To use such a powerful tool as music to preach politics is to my mind hunting horseflies with sledgehammers.

 

[River]

Considering to what we're subjected via every other medium, this is much ado about nothing.

Swatting at mosquitoes whilst green-bottle fly larvae are eating us up from the inside out.

This is the end result. Proper decorum dictates you go look for pictures of their life cycle yourself.

 

[FrankieOliver]

That's a poo fly! Well done.