Doing some Recon Thurs/Fri Night

[SealBeachHusker]

I get what you're saying and don't necessarily disagree. It just seems like there's a guilt-by-association culture in politics right now where if you're caught within a mile of somebody for any reason, all of a sudden you get saddled with their burdens even when it isn't appropriate. Things would be a lot less weird all the way around if everyone could get past that.

I'd have had to cancel 2/3 of my itinerary in California back in February if I let what musicians think about politics bother me. I didn't, and had a good time. Pretty easy to figure out!

I agree. Just seems that some artists contribute to the political polarization instead of helping people find common ground...which music should do.

I would think a true artist would find the beauty...or even some pretty cool irony...in watching people who disagree with you on issues enjoying your music. If an artist is simply trying to make poitical messages with great artistic appeal, then more power to 'em. But, there shouldn't be an issue, then, when someone chooses not to listen to 'em for political reasons.

I don't do this, but understand why people might take the position.

[huskernut]

I am much more likely to be influenced by an artist when their view point is conveyed in their songs (if their music is good), than by their words when they aren't singing. I love the Boss, but I really couldn't care less which candidate he is for.

[ChitownHusker]

I'm guessing the implication that you might actually dislike it if it IS played at the convention was somewhat tongue in cheek, so this isn't directed at you. It's directed at anyone who actually would get their panties in a twist over something like this:

There are too few great writers, artists, musicians, and even comics to not enjoy the work of those with whom you disagree about politics.

Yeah it was pretty much tongue in cheek, although I got sick of hearing Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow during the Clinton campaign, but it wasn't that great of a song to begin with.

[Pops]

I am much more likely to be influenced by an artist when their view point is conveyed in their songs (if their music is good), than by their words when they aren't singing. I love the Boss, but I really couldn't care less which candidate he is for.

only 2 I have ever listened to about their political leanings are Lennon and Dylan

[Lakewood Husker]

Yeah it was pretty much tongue in cheek, although I got sick of hearing Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow during the Clinton campaign, but it wasn't that great of a song to begin with.

Ehhh, Flashbacks of Tipper and Al dancing on the stage

[huskernut]

only 2 I have ever listened to about their political leanings are Lennon and Dylan

I was too young to listen their talk in real time, but I think in my case I would still have been much more likely to be influenced by their music than their speech. I do let artists reach me in their medium - in fact, I'm eager for it. If with a single lyric they can bring alive something that makes sense to me, I'll take it on board.

But I've had strong political opinions since I was 12 (flipped flop over time of course) so I've never felt like musicians knew something I didn't.

[huskernut]

There are limits, of course. Who can resist this lovely painting?


“The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich”, 1914

hitlerart4t.jpg

by Adolph Hitler

[SealBeachHusker]

Oh. I wasn't thinking about that when I made my point. But since you brought it up, I guess I don't have a big issues with artists who do that, on either side. To the maker of the art, it's quite a bit different than from the perspective of the viewer of the art. The maker is totally committed. That song is part of their public identity. They aren't just privately enjoying it, like I am when I listen to Peter Tosh sing "Get up, Stand up!" even though I'm not a revolutionary.

And, yet most artists are coy about their art's "true meaning", and "art is open to interpretation", and happy that "people find inspiration in my art". If "Get up, Stand up!", for example, is used in a GOP youth vote campaign it would be entirely hypocritical, IMO, to discourage voter participation based on disagreement with one's own political views.

And, it would seem that in saying their music is so tied to their public identity, and they then tie that public identity so tightly to partisan politics...then people have every right to distance themselves.

I absolutely love artists who's work has meaning, purposes and cause...it's makes for much more meaningful music, film, etc., but explicitly partisan interjection either through their art or through their fame, takes them from artist to political partisan...and that kinda sucks.

[SealBeachHusker]

I am much more likely to be influenced by an artist when their view point is conveyed in their songs (if their music is good), than by their words when they aren't singing. I love the Boss, but I really couldn't care less which candidate he is for.

I agree. And, to me, politics is beneath a great artist.

[Pops]

I was too young to listen their talk in real time, but I think in my case I would still have been much more likely to be influenced by their music than their speech. I do let artists reach me in their medium - in fact, I'm eager for it. If with a single lyric they can bring alive something that makes sense to me, I'll take it on board.

But I've had strong political opinions since I was 12 (flipped flop over time of course) so I've never felt like musicians knew something I didn't.

I never said i was influenced by them but I loved listening to them...they also spoke through their words and song and their songs reflected their beliefs.
Lennon very much became a political figure...enough so, it worried Hoover at the time and tried to get him deported. Was he making to much sense? absolutely!

[huskernut]

And, yet most artists are coy about their art's "true meaning", and "art is open to interpretation", and happy that "people find inspiration in my art". If "Get up, Stand up!", for example, is used in a GOP youth vote campaign it would be entirely hypocritical, IMO, to discourage voter participation based on disagreement with one's own political views.

And, it would seem that in saying their music is so tied to their public identity, and they then tie that public identity so tightly to partisan politics...then people have every right to distance themselves.

I absolutely love artists who's work has meaning, purposes and cause...it's makes for much more meaningful music, film, etc., but explicitly partisan interjection either through their art or through their fame, takes them from artist to political partisan...and that kinda sucks.

I think there is a difference between an artist saying, "Hey don't use my music, because some people may think it implies endorsement, and btw, I'm for the other guy," and an artist making a point of complaining about a politician. I can't even remember what it was the Dixie Chicks said about George Bush, but I may well have agreed with them. But when they said it, I could only roll my eyes. Like I care what the Dixie Chicks think?

[Pops]

I agree. And, to me, politics is beneath a great artist.

disagree...

[huskernut]

....

I absolutely love artists who's work has meaning, purposes and cause...it's makes for much more meaningful music, film, etc., but explicitly partisan interjection either through their art or through their fame, takes them from artist to political partisan...and that kinda sucks.

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think the best art isn't directly partisan. Springsteen sings evocatively of working class woes, and it makes me think about it. But if he sang, "so I voted Democratic, and everything was OK!" I would dismiss it.

But artists because of their art have a secret weapon see? By its appeal, it forces us to listen to it! They have an almost unfair opportunity to speak out, using their art. Any politician would kill to have the ability to reach people so meaningfully. In all seriousness, the best artists I think usually realize that. After the guitar chord ends, the magic is gone. You've said what you could. Now ********.

[huskernut]

I never said i was influenced by them but I loved listening to them...they also spoke through their words and song and their songs reflected their beliefs.
Lennon very much became a political figure...enough so, it worried Hoover at the time and tried to get him deported. Was he making to much sense? absolutely!

I love listening to their music today, and they have influenced me for sure. And the integrity of their art combined with their political belief is just as it should be. I just don't feel the need for their politics in explicit speech.

[Pops]

But yet so many will come on here and with a thread on what Ted Nugent said.....they will fall over themselves to agree with it

[huskernut]

I never said i was influenced by them but I loved listening to them...they also spoke through their words and song and their songs reflected their beliefs.
Lennon very much became a political figure...enough so, it worried Hoover at the time and tried to get him deported. Was he making to much sense? absolutely!

Actually, think about it, I think Bob Dylan may have been one of my influences in coming to believe that an artist speaks through his work. I think he once said to a reporter at a press conference something to the effect of the song means what it means. I'm listening to one of those press cons on you tube right now to see if I can find it.

[SealBeachHusker]

But yet so many will come on here and with a thread on what Ted Nugent said.....they will fall over themselves to agree with it

Ted who? lol

To me Ted Nugent has cheapened his rock and roll cred, and comes off as a reality show contestant.

He has every right to say what he says, but IMO cheapens him as an artist.

[SealBeachHusker]

I agree with you whole-heartedly. I think the best art isn't directly partisan. Springsteen sings evocatively of working class woes, and it makes me think about it. But if he sang, "so I voted Democratic, and everything was OK!" I would dismiss it.

But artists because of their art have a secret weapon see? By its appeal, it forces us to listen to it! They have an almost unfair opportunity to speak out, using their art. Any politician would kill to have the ability to reach people so meaningfully. In all seriousness, the best artists I think usually realize that. After the guitar chord ends, the magic is gone. You've said what you could. Now ********.

I guess that's what cheapens it to me, because art has a subtle yet powerful voice to reach people. By delving into partisan politics it cheapens it to me.

Kind of like telling an awesome joke, then spending the time to explain it.

And, not saying art can't have political message, or moral messages, but delving into the world of mainstream partisan politics is just cheap and tacky. At that point, whether you like it or not, you're just part of party PR/Propaganda.

Totally agree with your last point~

[huskernut]

I listened to most of an hour long Dylan press con from 1965 and couldn't find the quote I was looking for. Mostly it was Dylan being a bemused smart-ass with a bunch of square reporters who couldn't understand why young people liked him so much.

There was one part, which is on point, and which is actually entertaining to watch at 8:10 in the video (skip the rest, unless you're a Dylan junkie).

A young woman, really a girl, asks him if he prefers songs with an obvious or subtle message. Dylan deflects, but it is kind of entertaining. She says she heard his songs are "supposed to have a subtle message" unlike say, Eve of Destruction, which had an obvious one. He asks where she heard that and she says "In a movie magazine." Everyone, including the girl and Dylan, is laughing.

Then he lights a cigarette and says with graciousness, "we don't discuss those things here."

[Pops]

Ted who? lol

To me Ted Nugent has cheapened his rock and roll cred, and comes off as a reality show contestant.

He has every right to say what he says, but IMO cheapens him as an artist.

exactly