Can pop music change politics?

[Bellringer]

Good points all around. I do agree that preaching for change when you have the riches to help put change into effect can give the impression that you are using politics as a marketing ploy. If you really care and you have the ear of the media, you should make an effort to put your money where your mouth is. Or get your hands dirty. Talk is easy. It's easy to say what's wrong, solutions are the hard part.
Dialogue is important but artists need to avoid jumping on a bandwagon or getting involved in a flavor of the week without a level of commitment. It is the best way to inspire others to think and act.

[dolivas]

Yep Yep. It's one thing to say in words that you want change but it's another thing to actively bring about change. I still wouldn't go so far as to say just because you have wealth and fame your credibility on issues of poverty and the like should go down.

The nature of the beast is that if you're an artist living in the "First World" you have equal (or should I say not so equal) forces i.e. record companies, multinationals, mass media working against you through, for example, Entertainment Tonight, Spin magazine, blogs, tabloids etc. to undermine your opinion with their own show of force which is money and cohersion through what you have access to buy or see/hear. They are the ones with superior access through RIAA, MPAA, etc. al. to line the pockets of politicians and lobbyist to fight for their cause which is typically against change.

If you made it up through the ranks and gained wealth, even if you're background includes living in poverty like John Lennon did, then automatically the cogs in the wheel are set in motion to undermine you so As if to say you've automatically cheated society by speaking out once you attain your fame... as oppose to corporations, and politicians who really are the cheisters most of the times in that situation who use their positions to attain more wealth and power rather than provide for the greater good.

There's a reason you can only do so much "protesting" in societies like ours without then being properly drowned out by a well-seasoned establishment. Not to Godwin this thread but there's a quote from Goebbels floating around that would properly account for this.

(just to add anyone remember the Dixie Chick situation? they speak out from within their own typical base which would be conservative America against the war in Iraq and instantly Clearchannel owned stations (owned by conservative heads) start sponsoring cd bans on Dixie Chicks music through the airwaves and promote Support Our Troops festivals of that nature.)

:rant:

[Bellringer]

dolivas "The nature of the beast is that if you're an artist living in the "First World" you have equal (or should I say not so equal) forces i.e. record companies, multinationals, mass media working against you through, for example, Entertainment Tonight, Spin magazine, blogs, tabloids etc. to undermine your opinion with their own show of force which is money and cohersion through what you have access to buy or see/hear. They are the ones with superior access through RIAA, MPAA, etc. al. to line the pockets of politicians and lobbyist to fight for their cause which is typically against change."
I agree with you. FREEDOM is not always free. You can suffer greatly for your beliefs without having any legal recourse.

[Caturtle]

John Lennon was particularly hypocritical in this regard--Why was he living in New York? Because he was a tax exile who fled England to escape the punitive tax levels, i.e., to keep his gazillions of dollars for himself. And yet:

... Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can / No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man / Imagine all the people, sharing all the world. . . .

Do as I say, not as I do, eh Johnny?[/quote]


Any artist worth paying attention to will contradict themselves and if they don't want to do that, why don't they become politicians instead?

I say contradict away, please - do it honestly!

And if anyone deserved to be a rich rock star it's John Lennon, who didn't write music to be rich, but who became rich because he wrote music.

Rich / Poor - Who DOES like to pay taxes?

And where does tax money go? It's a three letter word . . . WAR

So maybe he was thinking about someone else afterall?

[mikegee]

Originally Posted by Caturtle

John Lennon was particularly hypocritical in this regard--Why was he living in New York? Because he was a tax exile who fled England to escape the punitive tax levels, i.e., to keep his gazillions of dollars for himself. And yet:

... Imagine no possessions, I wonder if you can / No need for greed or hunger, a brotherhood of man / Imagine all the people, sharing all the world. . . .

Do as I say, not as I do, eh Johnny?

Any artist worth paying attention to will contradict themselves and if they don't want to do that, why don't they become politicians instead?

I say contradict away, please - do it honestly!

And if anyone deserved to be a rich rock star it's John Lennon, who didn't write music to be rich, but who became rich because he wrote music.

Rich / Poor - Who DOES like to pay taxes?

And where does tax money go? It's a three letter word . . . WAR

So maybe he was thinking about someone else afterall?[/quote]





here's my two cents on that;

yea, pretty good points... but i do not see that as a hypocracy; meaning, lyrics do not have to represent what a writer is truly living, especially in the sense that the word "imagine" is hypothetical, so maybe he was pondering what that would be like, as opposed to how he truly lived... and he did live well! lyrics would be pretty boring if it was just a factual description of ones life, ya have to "imagine" hehe... i never take lyrics literally, they r most commonly metaphors or fictional stories, hardly ever based on true reality.

yea, yer right on the tax=war i agree 100% thats so sad...

[Professor Riffs]

For me, the world of music is where I go when I want to escape real, every day life. I would much rather have ambiguous/nonsensical lyrics, or even instrumental music over something that tells me exactly what the music is meant to portray. I want to get my own feelings & emotions from what I'm hearing. it just makes the music so much more personal.

I know there's a line to be drawn somewhere. A great deal of my favorite music has lyrics which definitely lend to the vibe of the tune and have a very obvious subject matter. But I think even the best songs of that type (political, story-type lyrics, any kind) let you get at least a bit of your own interpretation out of it. Somebody preaching in a song is like them yelling in my ear, and that happens all day every day. Somebody letting me get what I want out of their music is like a friend having a conversation in words that could never be spoken. I'll take that route any day.

Love,
The Riff.

[mikegee]

Originally Posted by Professor Riffs

For me, the world of music is where I go when I want to escape real, every day life. I would much rather have ambiguous/nonsensical lyrics, or even instrumental music over something that tells me exactly what the music is meant to portray. I want to get my own feelings & emotions from what I'm hearing. it just makes the music so much more personal.

I know there's a line to be drawn somewhere. A great deal of my favorite music has lyrics which definitely lend to the vibe of the tune and have a very obvious subject matter. But I think even the best songs of that type (political, story-type lyrics, any kind) let you get at least a bit of your own interpretation out of it. Somebody preaching in a song is like them yelling in my ear, and that happens all day every day. Somebody letting me get what I want out of their music is like a friend having a conversation in words that could never be spoken. I'll take that route any day.

Love,
The Riff.

nice... yea, when im listening to a song, i like lyrics to be vague, roundabout, general; universal, in a sense. that way, no matter what the lyrics are actually saying, i can interpet the song the way i feel when im listening to the song. the best songs i ever heard have a univeral feel to the lyrics, like the singer is singing about his or her experience, perhaps, yet it is sung in such a fashion that i can relate to the song in some arcane way...

mike gee

[bwethera]

(this is my own personal and disjointed rehtoric not in anyway refelects the other views or challenges them)
I think thats a bit of a misnomer, the whole marxsist lingo is a product of music popularizing political ideas just like the any concept. In a time where these ideas and music are made as an overall entertianment value along with TV having political overtones. they could say power to the people and so on but the are not handing it back nor is music really creating any change or awareness because its ment as an identifing concept from the artist. take the clashthe political change never happend because it never reached more than those who would already identified with the concept same with all the others and as far as changing ideas it only an aesthetic change and only surface politics not even a begining query into the ideas of governing control no it a moral and even worse a lifestyle challenge. I know this raises many questions and rebutle in the vain that these need to occur to create a real change. true enough but entertainment has been proven over and over that that is not a valid or even real platform. and if i ever hear working class in a discussion like this i might as well bring up the fact that the working class has all but been eliminated we are not the economy we once were, nor has any artist in this capacity ever been credible. it was something entirely different that led the french revolution not a symphony. all i am saying is that politics like al;l else in art is an interpertion of the the wolrd and ideas around an artist nothing more and nothing less.

[mikegee]

Originally Posted by bwethera

(this is my own personal and disjointed rehtoric not in anyway refelects the other views or challenges them)
I think thats a bit of a misnomer, the whole marxsist lingo is a product of music popularizing political ideas just like the any concept. In a time where these ideas and music are made as an overall entertianment value along with TV having political overtones. they could say power to the people and so on but the are not handing it back nor is music really creating any change or awareness because its ment as an identifing concept from the artist. take the clashthe political change never happend because it never reached more than those who would already identified with the concept same with all the others and as far as changing ideas it only an aesthetic change and only surface politics not even a begining query into the ideas of governing control no it a moral and even worse a lifestyle challenge. I know this raises many questions and rebutle in the vain that these need to occur to create a real change. true enough but entertainment has been proven over and over that that is not a valid or even real platform. and if i ever hear working class in a discussion like this i might as well bring up the fact that the working class has all but been eliminated we are not the economy we once were, nor has any artist in this capacity ever been credible. it was something entirely different that led the french revolution not a symphony. all i am saying is that politics like al;l else in art is an interpertion of the the wolrd and ideas around an artist nothing more and nothing less.

(QUOTE)i might as well bring up the fact that the working class has all but been eliminated we are not the economy we once were, nor has any artist in this capacity ever been credible.



yea, great point. i agree. it seems that the credible artists who speak or spoke for the little guy/poor/working class etc, has always been on the fringe of popularity, but also, almost always had a kind of cult following. like woody guthrie, jack karoake, lenny bruce etc and then if someone of that ilk does make the commercial breakthru, ala bob dylan, they are looked at as sellouts! go figure...