Rockers Versus Politicians


Pain in the Rear!
V.I.P. Member
Jan 6, 2009
Reaction score
I have to agree, an artist can come out and say the politician is destroying the meaning of the song and whatever, but if they comply with the law and use is approved, then that's it, that's all she wrote....


Thanks for the memories.
V.I.P. Member
Jan 19, 2010
Reaction score
Jeez, this has been a very educational thread. :shock: Thanks, guys! :applause:

My music is about people, not politics, but there's overlap, isn't there? People are political animals.

If I'm understanding this right, some of you guys are going so far as to avoid buying albums by certain artists because of their stated political views? That's very interesting.

Is it purely to leverage market forces (your consumer dollar) against their political agenda, or does the implied politics within the music also offend?

Uh, some examples; please discuss:

Jackson Brown, liberal politics, environmentalist, anti-nuke; from Late For The Sky:

[ame=]YouTube - ‪Jackson Brown - After The Deluge (live 1977)‬‏[/ame]

Don Henley, also liberal politics, environmentalist, anti-nuke, and even when so far as to both endorse Gary Hart AND hook him up with Donna Rice; from Hotel California:

[ame=]YouTube - ‪THE EAGLES - THE LAST RESORT‬‏[/ame]

My personal view has always been that it was one thing for those guys to support issues, like environmental causes, and the restriction of nuclear power, and quite another thing altogether for them to endorse particular political parties and candidates, to the point of hosting fundraisers for their endorsees. That said, my record collection would be very incomplete without both Late For The Sky and Hotel California.


Senior Member
Apr 29, 2007
Reaction score
The thing that is not presented is if the "artists" are pissed because they were not getting paid for use of their material or they were pissed because they do not believe in the politics of who was using it. How soon will they be stopping cover bands or anyone who covers one of their songs just because they do not like the persons or groups? They have put their music in the public domain under the provision that they get paid whenever it is used; I see no reason that they determine who can or cannot play their music.

Ironically, though I don't actually believe cover bands should be stopped from covering the songs of the pros, about 95% of the cover bands I've seen over the years butcher the songs anyway (including me). Maybe it's not such a bad idea. :lol:


Senior Member
Nov 28, 2010
Reaction score
No, that is not what I said. Royalties should be paid. My question is if the politicians paid royalties, then how can the "artist" refuse permission for use of the material. How can the "artists" use their personal ideology to prevent someone form legally (paying royalties) using their material?

Note: public domain was a poor choice of words to describe legally available (for a fee) music. I was unaware that copyright laws allowed the originator to decide who can use their material.

The only info I could find easily was on Wikipedia, but according to them,
Authors of literary or artistic works as well as holders of related rights enjoy exclusive rights to authorise or prohibit the use of their works. In cases where the rights cannot be enforced vis-à-vis individual members of the public or where individual management would not be appropriate, given the number and type of uses involved, right holders are granted a remuneration right instead. These rights are typically managed by collecting societies.

It looks to me like they could individually deny a person the right to use their song.

I guess Springsteen skirting the draft is okay...since he's a peace lover and supporter of the libs. That would make sense.

That crap drives me nuts. Especially that he then had the nerve to go and write a song from the PoV of a Vietnam vet. That's chutzpah.

Latest Threads