Does it bother you when an artist gets political? Either onstage, in their music or in the media?

Question

Rage Against the Machine is an example of a band that wears their politics on their sleeve... other bands, like Pearl Jam, are politically active although it doesn't always reflect in their music.

Rockstar- I wouldn't agree with your assesment at all. With the exception of The Dixie Chicks - who's fanbase are very patriotic Republicans... most bands that do this sort of thing have no fallout over it. With bands like RATM and SOAD..it's actually part of the draw.
I personally don't mind...it's their stage and they are welcome to their opinions, just as long as they can take the criticism that comes along with that.

Answer 1

Lets not forget Bono from u2.
Yeah it bothers me, I dont buy tickets for your opinion on life.
I want to hear you make music about it. Or I like the way it drives your music and the end result thereof.
Just shut up and sing. All your bullshit politics werent on the CD dont put them on stage!
~Steve

Answer 2

It depends on how it's done and if it affects the sound. If the lyrics were political mumbo jumbo without anything clever or new to say, but it was delivered with good vocals and the music was good, I wouldn't care at all, I've probably heard worse lyrics, at least they were trying. But if it sounded like garbage to back up a political rant (there was a Crass album where the music was atrocious on purpose so that you would focus on the lyrics, that's BS) then I wouldn't listen to it, you might as well just do spoken word performances.

But if you can deliver your message cleverly/humourously/skillfully then it's never a problem, the views Jesse Michaels expresses in Operation Ivy's music are actually a great additive, they make the songs mean more to me besides sounding great, the same thing with the already mentioned Bad Religion, an excellent band that makes the message part of the music and deliver it with very effective lyrics so it doesn't sound forced and everyone's happy. Then something like "Police Truck" by the Dead Kennedys brings up a serious issue in a funny way, as funny as it can be anyways, similar with their songs "Holiday In Cambodia" and "California Uber Alles" where it's just a general statement of displeasure done in good humour.

So basically if the political-ness is:
A) Easy to ignore when you're not in the mood
B) Effectively used as part of the song
or C) Done in an interesting non-boring way

Then it's fine.

Answer 3

I can appreciate it. I think if you know what you're talking about and you've got your platform you might as well use it. I can totally respect that. What if Bob Dylan or the Beatles didn't want to mix their politics into their music? Some great tunes came out of it. I think it's great that Bono, for instance, is proactive about wanting to feed starving people. I don't get at all why people think that's such a bad thing.

Where it gets in the way is when you're live show is more about your politics than your music. I saw the Beastie Boys a while back and it was ridiculous. I swear it was like an activist rally, and it was too much and took away from the experience quite a bit. Say your piece at a show, sure, I totally support spreading a message and taking a couple minutes to do so, but you shouldn't forget that you're doing a concert for people who came to see your music, not your politics. The Beastie Boys apparently forgot that and it did bother me whether or not I agreed with what they were saying.

Answer 4

Isn't music supposed to be a distraction from the everyday life annoyances such as politics?

You don't see the Senate Majority leader pontificate about how the Beatles should have used more synthesizers, you shouldn't see some drugged up, groupie-bonking musician pontificate about whether a flat tax is fair or not. Let's keep things compartmentalized so I can enjoy both in their due time.

But it doesn't bother me, because I just switch it off and find some other tune or other band.

Answer 5

Yeah, it gets pretty annoying to me. Especially since about 90% of my favorite artists share political beliefs that differ from mine. They have every right to say what they say, I'm all for freedom of speech. But the Bush-bashing is a tired topic, and even though I absolutely love music and the meaning behind the songs, I really don't care what the political opinion is of a bunch of band members. Unfortunately, these rock stars think that because they sell so many albums, that their opinion is more important or valid than anyone else's. Same goes for the Hollywood celebrities. I've come to expect political rants through song by the likes of RATM and SOAD, but I was disappointed when NIN, Foo Fighters, and Linkin Park jumped on the left-wing bandwagon. I thought Eddie Vedder was a bit out of line when PJ came to Houston and bashed a cardboard cut-out of George W. with a baseball bat. Was that really necessary? What point does that prove...that he wants to kill our president? Again, these bands have every right to express themselves, but usually I wish they would just play the music.

Answer 6

I don't have as much of a problem with political activism as I do with the constant preaching. Sometimes it's painfully apparent that certain groups exploit their fame solely for the purpose of spreading their message. I don't like hearing it no matter what side of the fence their on. I find the Dixie Chicks to be a really interesting example. They had the absolute right to their opinion. Looking back upon it, perhaps they were right. In their case, it had more to do with how they went about their criticism as opposed to what they said. They issued their rant on foreign soil which made it seem sort of cowardly. Timing played a part too in that had they done the same thing two years later, the media probably wouldn't have made as big an issue out of it.

One group that I don't mind hearing the message from is Bad Religion. Hard to explain, but it just seems like they have a better understanding of all the facts without the Ivy League conceit of a Tom Morello.

I like the way Sylvia put it, those are my sentiments too.

Answer 7

It doesn't bother me.

Art has been a means of political expression for a very long time and is often an effective way of changing the cultural consciousness.

It does bother me when celebrities that have never suffered anything greater than over abundance start championing the poor like they have a clue.

I guess the bottom line is that I'm okay with the expression of political views through art, but not okay with artists acting like their popularity gives them some special insight or status for expressing their political views outside the context of their art.

Interesting question

Answer 8

no longer fairly. i've got discovered approximately numerous bands because of the fact Nirvana and Kurt 'advised' them. whilst that's a crappy artist who endorses bands, i assume it is style of stressful, yet i'm no longer able to truly assume that only because of the fact they make crappy track that they've a crappy flavor is track so i'm no longer able to truly choose them. possibly Katy Perry fairly does love Queen. so a approaches as being stated in movies, i think which may well be stressful, besides the undeniable fact that it relies upon on the context (the 'marvelous' element would have aggravated me) and whether the band agreed to it or no longer. Like, if Sonic young ones's music replaced into on the soundtrack, i'd assume that they agreed to it. So, if it would not problem them, then it would not problem me. yet whilst the action picture only throws out the call of a band to make the characters or the action picture as an entire look cooler, or edgier or something, which may well be stressful. Guitar Hero would not problem me that plenty the two, because of the fact besides the undeniable fact that it brings out numerous '#a million followers' who comprehend only one music, the bands, for the main area, conform to be on the game i'd think of. so a approaches as whilst this happens to Nirvana,or the different band the place the author(s) of the track is lifeless or has no rights to the track anymore, i'm getting a splash greater aggravated because of the fact the author of the track would not get a say in whether or no longer that's used for "Guitar Hero" or the rest. i do no longer think of something I only suggested made any sense =S BA: Bleh. I would desire to pass to the common college and instruct 5th graders approximately cigarettes in approximately an hour. i'm scared to dying of babies although, so this would desire to suck rather undesirable =/ BA2:Alice in Chains-"Sunshine"

Answer 9

I think it's a cheapshot, especially when bands like RATM, SOAD, and NIN (recently) completely blow the situation out of proportion and sway their fans by scaring the living **** out of them and even flat out lying. I mean I was at the first RATM reunion show and Zach was calling out for the assassination for every American president from Truman and on, I was like "Truman's already dead, you ********.." It just creates way more bandwagon political supporters who really actually don't know what they're talking about, but would support anything their heroes do.

Answer 10

I answered a similar question to this one in great gory detail in the "News And Events" section the other day, so I won't repeat meself here.

Bottom line?

"Rock and Roll is music for the neck down."- Keith Richards

Answer 11

I hate it when that becomes their whole image. It cheapens the art of the music. I've mentioned something similar to this in the past. When you get political, you start selling the message as much as, if not more than, the music itself. That drives me nuts. It's okay when you do it tastefully, but nobody needs to hear a soap-box rant with background guitars.
My favorite saying about it goes: George Orwell could have written an essay on the Soviet Union, but he wrote Animal Farm instead.