quote:

Originally posted by mark f:

quote:

Originally posted by crazed:
As far as politics in music goes, I think Toby Keith is a scary mutha, too.

I was listening to a Christian folk/psych album this afternoon. An early 70's band called Window, who's self-titled debut was just reissued by Radioactive Records. The songs run deep in that time's naive, hippee communal/religious tone. Sweet and unoffensive, now highly dated. Were those songs- Day By Day et al - labeled "Christian" back then? I can't recall.

Well, "Day By Day" is from the musical Godspell about Jesus' life transposed to 1970s NYC. Does that make it "Christian"? The subject matter certainly is.

Is "I Don't Know How to Love Him" from Jesus Christ Superstar a Christian song if heard out of context on the radio?

Now I remember, they used to call it Jesus rock. Good point about the JCS song. I guess one could say the same thing about the Mary Jane pot-or-love songs. Hope I ain't datin' myself too much here.

quote:

I had never heard of 16 Horsepower before, so I looked them up on allmusic.

16 Horsepower and David Edwards' Woven Hand are among my favorite artists. I love what Edwards did with his version of "Ain't No Sunshine".

quote:

To refocus on music, what are some bands/artists that you feel successfully or unsuccessfully get across their political or religious views? By successfully, I don't mean that you are converted to their viewpoints, but rather, you can sympathize?

Most successful for political songs, I pick Steve Earle. As for religious view most successfully, da man- Rev. Al Green.

I'm sure many here probably saw the article last month on Pitchfork about the "Hell's Bells" documentary (if you haven't it is in the Features archive). Has anyone here seen it and would like to give their thoughts?

Is there truth to the idea that listening to certain music can corrupt your mind and/or change your behavior?

Can anyone attest to music changing the way they think, positively or negatively, about politics or anything else for that matter?

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
As far as musical enjoyment goes, I would say that political or religious lyrics that I ardently disagree with are similar to really corny lyrics. They both make me cringe and reduce my enjoyment of the music. The only difference really is that I wouldn't buy an album that pushed political or religious causes that I really think do harm.

I dunno about that. I listen to Bright Eyes and Lennon even though I think that their politics do harm. It is good music.

And why do you guys keep thinking that tolerance is a good thing?

(as I dutifully slink back to "Politics" thread now...)

Music changes everybody, and I don't mean just temporarily. I guess it depends on if you're REALLY weird, like I am, or maybe more normal. I don't "listen to music" in the car (busted antenna AND player) or on the computer (stubborn, arthritic Alzheimer's). I will listen to a CD, tape (!), vinyl LP at home, but I might actually listen to more music in my head.

Now, it's true that I like many left-leaning artists (Yo La Tengo, Sonic Youth, Radiohead, etc.) Most of the artists reviewed in MC are leftish. It goes with the "alternative/indie" territory. The first election I voted in was the 1976 Carter/Ford, and since I was "indoctrinated" by the Beatles between the ages of eight and 14, I guess I've always thought of "alternative" as normal, so the music doesn't really push me in a direction; it reinforces my politics. However, my politics are very independent and specific. I DON'T believe in any "party lines" when it comes to individual issues.

Oh well, I thought for a minute that I was going to say something, but I think it's time to: shut up, mark!

Any good musician or band uses their music as a genuine means of expression. And that means expressing whatever they need to express. Whether it be their faith, their political viewpoint, their opinions on relationships, love, romance, etc. etc.

I've definitely seen a sharp rise in the number of politically motivated songs since the war in Iraq started.

Bands that I feel have been successful getting their religious or political viewpoints across to their listeners are: Tool, Creed, Pearl Jam, 16 Horsepower, Rage against the Machine, System of a Down, Jars of Clay, Ben Harper, P.O.D... To name a few. And I don't necessarily listen to all these bands but I do think they've been successful in giving their listeners the music they want combined with the political or religious expression of the band.

quote:

Most of the artists reviewed in MC are leftish. It goes with the "alternative/indie" territory.

I think it not only goes with the alternative/indie genre, but it goes with artists in general. I think that artists tend to be more independent-minded than your average person, and they also tend to have a bigger heart than most. The impression that I get is that a rather substantial majority of creative writers, poets, and artists are leftist. Of course, you do have your sub-genres like mainstream country music where conservatives are more prominent, but then there are other genres like punk and indie rock which are almost exclusively leftist.

Pax, 'Tolerance' is only bad the specific way you've defined it to get across your talking points in politics. You've decided it means 'Going along with things you know to be evil'. Nobody else is using it that way.

The way 'tolerance' is used in pop culture it's more along the lines of 'Accepting personal differences between individuals'. Like, you tolerate different faiths the same way you tolerate people who like different foods than you.

But, expressing your own viewpoint through music can never really be considered 'harmful'. The quality of the expression of an idea has more to do with the manner it's expressed than the specific viewpoint presented. I have a problem with liberal music when it's just 'BUSH IS EVIL AND EVERYBODY IS SO IGNORANT TO HAVE VOTED FOR HIM!' But when they express anti-Bush sentiment in a well thought out, even-handed way, it's engaging.

Similarly, when religious music comes across as 'Everybody is evil who does not agree with us and you are evil unless you accept Jesus', it's hard to listen to. But when they express it in a better way, it's perfectly okay.

I was never offended or influenced by political undertones in the music that I listened to. My all time favorite band, Pink Floyd, was very political and Roger Waters was the driving force behind most of the politically related material. I love The Final Cut (1983) and hold it as my personal favorite. It may also be the most politically driven album in not only Floyd's catalogue, but also of the 80's as a decade. Waters used his position to point the finger at world leaders, honor soldiers, and even champion countries such as Argentina.

I have noticed that there has been an increase in politically motivated music since the start of the war in Iraq. I have no problem with this and I even see humor in some of these "Nu-Metal, Punk, Leftist, Politically Charged" "Artists" who dig deep inside their arsenal of vocabulary and utter an ever so effective statement of protest, such as, "George Bush is a dickhead." Many of these "artists" just happened to look down one day and see a microphone in their hands. At that point, they realized that they could speak and people would listen. This microphone would actually amplify their voices and somehow make what they were saying appear to be more important than the words uttered by the "normal" voice.

I'd say that blind protest is just as annoying as blind patriotism and equally as useless. There are many artists out there that take an intelligent approach to political matters and voice an opinion that is well thought out and full of true emotion. I applaud these artists and simply ignore the buffoons who are only speaking to be heard. (Green Day, Blink 182 ...) I also choose to ignore the flag waving, truck selling, not-for-me-but-send-your-kids-to-war-and-I'll-cheer, musicians.

I have never stopped liking an artist for their political views and maybe this is because I tend to enjoy intelligent music. I refuse to sacrifice lyrical content for a good guitar solo or an amazing drummer. I don't think that the artists I do listen to would subject themselves to embarrassment by speaking without thinking.

One trend I do disagree with is actors, musicians, and influential people getting on stage with politicians to promote them. This has been going on for years and years and never made sense to me. I wouldn't trust these unqualified people for political advice any more than I would trust my local mailman to perform brain surgery on me. The artists tend to get a "Bono Complex" and really start thinking that they can and will make a difference. The politicians won't complain because they can use the attention and the support. Imagine being torn between Bush and Kerry because you just bought a John Mellencamp and a Toby Keith CD. If these artists don’t realize that they are being used for their fame and not for their opinions, then I feel sorry for them.

I think if left-wing celebrities/musicians want the Democratic candidate to win, they should endorse the Republican. Polls have shown that Americans are more likely to vote against a candidate because of such endorsements. They don't like to be told how to vote by "know-it-alls" from Hollywood.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:

quote:

Most of the artists reviewed in MC are leftish. It goes with the "alternative/indie" territory.

I think it not only goes with the alternative/indie genre, but it goes with artists in general. I think that artists tend to be more independent-minded than your average person, and they also tend to have a bigger heart than most. The impression that I get is that a rather substantial majority of creative writers, poets, and artists are leftist. Of course, you do have your sub-genres like mainstream country music where conservatives are more prominent, but then there are other genres like punk and indie rock which are almost exclusively leftist.

Oh, ok ravinglunatic, I always wondered why someone was more left wing. Now I know it's because they're more independent minded and have bigger hearts. Yeah, that's it. I mean, certainly right wingers don't love the ideals of independence and obviously have smaller hearts.

Think before you post rl. Oh, wait...that's right...your handle, duh.

And I disagree with the assumption you made that nearly all of the indie rock or punk bands are leftist. Just because they're different or not mainstream, doesn't automatically make them leftist.

I don't think it's a very controversial thing to say that right-wingers are less compassionate, Hudson. Why do you think Bush kept pushing his new brand of supposedly compassionate conservatism? He did it for the same reason that Kerry pulled all his military-salute, report-for-duty shit. Everyone knows that leftists are more anti-war, so Kerry tried to avoid being called a radical liberal by proving how much of a warhawk he could be. Similarly, everyone knows conservatives are less compassionate, so Bush tried to counteract that characterization by acting all caring.

And who is always trying to force students to recite the pledge of allegiance, say the national anthem, and prohibit flag-burning, all methods of indoctrination and promoting blind faith in our greatness? Almost always right-wingers.

The right is far more unified because conservative people tend to be more traditional, more close-minded, and less independent. Left-wingers are more open to change and independent-minded.

And sure, maybe conservative indie and punk bands exist, but they've gotta be really rare. I mean, can anyone even name a right-wing punk band?

Just because someone doesn't like Bush doesn't make them leftist any more than someone who dislikes Hillary Clinton or Kerry is automatically rightwing.

I also fail to see your connection between the left and being antiwar. History has shown that left-minded individuals are just as likely to initiate war as right wingers.

And just so you know, leftist is a term that comes from the "social" movement or socialism...Karl Marx's movement. Personally, I don't see socialism as proponent for indenpendence...more like...dependence. In fact, it's the left wing members of the u.s. government that are pushing more and bigger federal programs and more taxes. In other words, more government involvment in our lives. No thanks.

Anyway, I would venture to say that most indie or punk bands are neither that much right or that much left...speaking in regards to their music that is. In general I think the indie movement is more about free expression and thinking than it is about the politics of leftist or rightwingers.

I think it's certainly true that conservatives are seen as less compassionate in their policies (ie. welfare), but to imply that all conservatives are not is a big step. Part of it is how you view compassion. Is it giving out checks and providing health care to everyone while raising taxes on the upper class, or is it not enabling those who are taking advantage of the system and forcing them to get with it and provide for themselves so everyone else doesn't have to carry their burden. I'm not sure myself but I can see both sides of this as well as the war issue. Regardless though, it seems unfair to say that all people who voted for Bush and believe in his policies have less of a heart than those indie artists who voted for Kerry. I would guess that if my car broke down in the middle of nowhere and I needed help, they would be just as likely to help me out.

Also, the Democratic party is not as independent-minded as you think. They have some views (without getting into specifics) that you have to hold to if you are going to run for office on their ticket. To be truly independent, you would have to run as an Independent (good luck with that!).

That's the thing!! We need a viable third, fourth, fifth (I'm not limiting) party. It's the two-party system which insures democracy, but it also severely limits it.

EDIT- Hey, mark f, where's your discussion about music? Get with the program, ya beech.


Sorry, I thought I was at work...Music has the same problem. Lets's use all the colors of the rainbow and all the shades of grey to make this place and EVERYWHERE that much better! (Shut up, already, mf!)

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
That's the thing!! We need a viable third, fourth, fifth (I'm not limiting) party. It's the two-party system which insures democracy, but it also severly limits it.

Agreed!!! I recently saw a Chris Rock comedy special where he comments on the problems with two political parties. Rather impressive and insightful considering the source. It made more sense to me than any political debate that I've seen recently.

I never said anything about the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is just the less extreme of the two business parties we have in this nation. Real leftists rarely ever get elected. Dennis Kucinich is about the only example of one that I know. Usually, they instead work for human rights organization, labor unions, or some environmental cause. Among politicians, leftists are almost nonexistent, indeed, they are precluded by the current campaign finance laws of having any chance of winning, as are Libertarians who are against corporate giveaways. By the way you're talking it sounds as if you would be a Libertarian. Don't allow yourself to be deluded into thinking that the Republicans are against big government.

As far as the people who voted for Bush and those who voted for Kerry...what's the difference. I mean, those guys were practically clones on 95% of the issues. Long John Kerry just basically said he'd do the same things as Bush only better.

When someone talks about the Democrats wanting "bigger government" as if the Republicans aren't, I know they have never read anything about the size of government outlays under either of the Bushes or Reagan. Both parties advocate and enact enormous giveaways to corporations, and very small giveaways to ordinary Americans. The Republicans are slightly more extreme in their desire to hand out money to the rich, and they want to give slightly less to the poor than Democrats, so they are naturally called "the party of small government" by the corporate press.

Shit, man, let's take this party to the politics forum. Everyone's invited. It's gonna be wild.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
Don't allow yourself to be deluded into thinking that the Republicans are against big government.

I agree. Whichever party is in power, government grows.

Going back to why alternative/indie artists are almost always leftists, I think it's a combination of geography and culture. Most rock bands form in bigger cities which are always more liberal as a population than rural areas and smaller towns (just look for the blue spots on the county map for the 2004 election). People who live in big cities live fast-paced lives and highly value progressivism. Meanwhile, country groups mostly come from the south where the culture values tradition and familiarity more. As a result, country music doesn't change much while rock music is always pushing the boundaries. Therefore if you think progressively, you will play more progressive music. If you think more traditionally, you will play more traditional music.

I don't know if this makes any sense, but oh well.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Interesting topic, but what happened to the music part?

To bring the music part back into play, I will reiterate a point I made in a different thread: I don't consciously AVOID music that is about someone's faith or politics, but any music that is preachy about ANYTHING usually rubs me the wrong way. Even if the music is preachy about things I deeply care about (ex: "you've gotta fight for your right to party" ) I'm gonna be annoyed. I'm not saying musicians shouldn't have political or religious views, but I'll be more likely not to pay attention, right or wrong.

I think the religious preachiness bothers me more than political preachiness, mainly because I really don't care to be proselytized. I think it's great that you have been saved, Mr. Average Southern Baptist, but I don't care to spend time with you while you try to convince me why I should do as you do. Maybe I feel this way because I've spent over a decade in the South where people are constantly trying to save my soul. I don't like unsolicited attempts to sell me something, be it a product or religion. So, 'preachy' religious music tends to turn me off in a big way. But there are artists who proclaim their Christianity and who might even offer some tidbits of it in their music that are fine with me (ex: Starflyer 59, Sufjan Stevens, Damien Jurado, Griffin House) because I don't feel like I'm hearing a sermon or being "sold" on a faith, but merely that the artists are baring a part of them that is important.

In the same vein, there are some strongly political artists that I like (Midnight Oil, Dan Bern, Billy Bragg, R.E.M., U2) but I generally find that musicians talking about politics simply sound vapid. Billy Bragg is an example of an artist I really like whose politics (a very strong pro-labor socialism) I don't really agree with, but whose music doesn't turn me off. The other reason political stuff grates on me is that timely political songs tend not to age well. Give me a good song about the politics of love anyday...

Yeah, I was just reading some Damien Jurado lyrics from the album Ghost of David (his masterpiece, in my opinion). I never realized it before, but some of them are religious. And they're beautiful. I'm like pE, I don't really go for someone trying to sell me their religious nostrums, but if it's just a guy expressing what he feels, and the images and thoughts that come to him as a result of his spirituality or religion, it can be amazing. Seven Swans is another album like that.

As far as the whole political lyric thing goes, I agree that they often come off sounding insipid. I recently listened to a long radio interview with Sufjan, and I like his thoughts on the subject. He says that if he wants to get across a political message, he wants to do it in a very personal and specific way. Instead of talking about generalities and taxes and genocide, he talks about an individual's life and what they feel and experience in very concrete and specific terms. And through these very detailed descriptions, something profound can emerge. Now Sufjan doesn't do too much political stuff, but that's how I'd like to see it done.

I think one good example of this would be "Idioteque" by Radiohead, which I think is basically a political song. I don't know if anybody here knows much about Thom Yorke's political views, but from what I've read, he's what today is called a radical leftist (because he wants to do something about global warming and global poverty and he doesn't have any qualms about imposing limits on corporate behavior in order to do it.) He would be off the political spectrum in the US. Anyways, he could've turned "Idioteque" into a bland song decrying the fact that nuclear war could break out any minute and that we're destroying the earth by releasing too much carbon dioxide. And though he does describe a nuclear war and global warming, he mostly sings about how it affects him: "I have seen too much / I haven't seen enoug."

"I laugh until my head comes off / I swallow until I burst."

"We aren't scaremongering / this is really happening."
"Here I'm allowed / everything all of the time."

What mostly comes across is the fact that he is scared crapless and that thinking about these apocalyptic scenarios is nearly driving him insane. And this song really hits home because of it.

quote:

Originally posted by RavingLunatic:
I think one good example of this would be "Idioteque" by Radiohead

That is definitely a successful political song. My favorite off Kid A and one of my top 5 Radiohead songs. I always got the impression it was about nuclear holocaust with the references "who's in a bunker"... "women and children first"... and especially "ice-age comin" which seems to be a reference to nuclear winter. Very intense lyrics matched by an equally intense vocal.