"In politically liberal Seattle --particularly among his peers in the music community -- the right-leaning musician sticks out because of his worldview. But he believes entertainment and activism should remain separate. 'Like Conor Oberst of Bright Eyes -- I think he's a phenomenal singer/songwriter and artist,' Jurado says. 'He's a very talented guy. But as soon as he opens his mouth about politics, it turns me off. I don't care. Can you imagine if you went to a baseball game and before Randy Johnson throws his first pitch for the game, he wants to talk to everyone about the election? No one cares. They came to watch a sports game. There's a time and a place for politics, and I don't feel that the public arena in music is the place for it. [It] doesn't change anybody's mind. A Slayer song never made me want to go sacrifice my family with a hammer. And a Bruce Springsteen song never made me want to vote for Kerry.'

PASTE Issue 15 April/May '05

Take THAT Slayer, Springsteen, and Oberst

waaaaaa......conor is more popular than me now.....waaaaaaa

btw, jesus thinks you suck too....

Ironically, by even talking about OTHER people doing any sort of political work, HE is doing political work. Right wingers don't seem to get that, and it always makes me laugh. The baseball thing is stupid too. Artists are creating something, sometimes beautiful, sometimes evil, often in the middle, but they are de facto making a statement ABOUT something.

Who is this guy anyway, Hegel?

Isn't his problem with artists who talk politics at shows/in their music?

Jurado's a traditionalist folk/country singer-songwriter.

The analogy between baseball and music doesn't work.

Music has lyrics, which include opinion and reflective statement by their very existance.

Excising all political statement from your lyrics or stage banter would be more akin to a great pitcher with a very unusual but effective pitch being told he could only throw fastballs.

Baseball is not music. Sorry, Damien. You're wrong.

This falls prey to the "everyone else is just like me or if not they should be" syndrome.

Jurado's music is damn good, BTW.

So what part of this has to do with him being right wing?

He's quite good. I'd recommend checking out Rehearsals for Departures and Ghost of David.

From Allmusic

Urban folk singer/songwriter Damien Jurado quietly built up one of the strongest catalogs on the indie scene, earning high critical praise yet somehow never quite getting his proper due. Nick Drake had a definite impact on much of his work, but Jurado modeled his career on more idiosyncratic, unpredictable figures like Neil Young, Bob Dylan, Lou Reed, or Randy Newman — songwriters who followed their own muse wherever it took them, whether fans and critics agreed or not. His independent-mindedness was born at least in part from the influence of punk, and one of the results was a concern for emotional authenticity that led him to delve into other people's lives instead of his own. Many of Jurado's best songs spun concise, literate tales of quiet everyday despair, which often earned him comparisons to short story writer Raymond Carver. But his storytelling bent — not to mention his ambivalence toward confessional material — arose from a stronger grounding in traditional folk than spiritual compatriots like Elliott Smith or Cat Power. And with detours into pop, roots rock, full-fledged electric indie rock, and even found-sound experiments, Jurado ensured that his body of work was impossible to completely pin down.

Are we still talking about Bright Eyes? (that was for you, Bloor )

I can definitely sympathize with Jurado. I don't think politics and music should be entirely seperate, but during the month leading up to the election, when every lead singer was telling me to vote out the White Devil, I got pretty annoyed. We give most of these people a venue because we like the album, not because we like their politics. If the Damnwells (to take a particularly annoying example from the period) wanted to speak about politics on a panel at NYU, they would be summarily ignored. Why should I let them sneak it in just because we gave them a mic and a PA for completely seperate reasons?

There's also the matter that some very drastic changes have happened in the U.S. in the past few years and many people, even musicians, feel compelled to talk about them.

If you don't like it, too bad. Stay away from all shows by "liberals" then if you can't cope with dissenting opinon.

Many don't like what the Bush administration has done the past four years, but it's not like we can say "there's a time and a place for your frightening right wing bullshit." We have to hear it whether we want to or not.

Musicians are as entitled to public statement as anyone else and saying you didn't pay for a ticket to be preached at is a pretty lame thing. The musician is free to provide whatever sort of concert he or she chooses. Don't go next time if you don't like it. He's not compelled to please you personally or even be aware of what it is would even begin to please you. You're free to be annoyed by it and he's free to be annoying. Yippee tie aye.

np" Opal "Happy Nightmare Baby"

Bullshit. They have more opportunity for public statement because we give them that opportunity, and we give them that opportunity primarily to hear their music because they've proven they deserve a musical forum (though some arguably don't). We give people opportunity for public statement on politics when they've proven they deserve a political forum (though some arguably don't).

Yes he is, but by complaining about to magazine writers he perpetuates it. I wonder if he ever dedicates songs to "Conor, who sould learn to Shut Up and Sing"? or the usual BS.

I wonder why the interviewer didn't ask him about Charlie Daniels et al (different type of music, but not HUGELY removed from Springsteen)

I just think that many of these people ingonore stuff like, say it being a Free Country, where people can say whatever the fuck they want.

I don't know who The Damnwells are, but I do know that Springsteen is can be seen as a cultural barometer, and his opnion rates a lot of merit.

I don't feel that anyone on this planet needs my or anyone elses "given opportunity" to express distress about something political. They don't have to prove anything to have an opinion.

It's just that some musicians are much better at working it into their music than others and are thus far less annoying about it.

just b/c you have the right doesn't make it not tiresome. I don't agree with him b/c I like some political records, but this artist backing politics can get extremely annoying. They have the right, and I have the right to think they're assholes.

Damien Jurado's medication is one of my favorite songs ever.

You're correct. I don't think there's anything wrong with musicians saying whatever they want to on stage. It's a free country, we have freedom of speech and we've payed to see them perform. If part of that performance is preaching at us about politics, that's up to them.

That said, regardless of which wing their politics are, I personally find it terribly annoying when musicians feel like they have to throw in their two cents about the president every chance they get. The lowest I've seen was the lead singer of the Stills telling us he was powerless to vote Bush out of the White House because he's Canadian. He went on to say that it was our duty as Americans to vote him out of office.

Again, that's all fine and good. I paid for the ticket and gave him a mic in a country with free speech for all. Keep in mind, however, that this goes for the guy preaching Jesus on a street corner downtown as well. It's a free country, he can say what he wants, where he wants. If you don't like it, don't walk down that street.

Good Point. If I was in attendance, I wprobably would have thrown something at him

What I meant, in my original response to this thread is that I am AS tired of people complaining about "lefty" musicians as I am of the musicians themselves. And I find it funny that these people see nothing contradictory in the fact that they are slagging on a dude in much the same forum (seeing a show and reading PASTE are both about MUSIC, n'est-ce pas?) as that dude is slagging the president.

BTW, if it wasn't clear, I absolutely agree with their right to do it. But I also think that it's often quite presumptive: "these people love me, they must want to hear what's on my mind!" And I think that people like Jurado have every right to say "knock it off, that's not what I'm here for." Sure, going to a concert there's a CHANCE you'll hear politics. It doesn't mean you only have 2 choices: stay home or just keep quiet and like it. You're allowed to tell artists that you don't care what they have to say about politics. That's YOUR right to free speech.

My problem is that there are too many people that think the microphone in front of their face automatically gives their opinion credibility or expert qualifications.

These are also generally the same people who believe that the right to free speech includes the right to a captive audience or immunity from rebuttals of any sort.

Sorry Traci Bingham, you ain't that smart.

Sinead O'Connor tearing up a photo of the Pope.

Give them a stage and a mic and watch them go off.

Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't, but give someone a mic and a feeling of self importance and you get what you get.

I think there is a huge difference between an artist taht writes music that is political in nature, something like Bob Dylan, versus someone who is not primarily writing about the political scene (Bright Eyes). If you love Bob Dylan, especially in his heyday, then you should expect to hear political things at a show, although someone like Dylan probably never felt the necessity to actually say, "so-and-so sucks", but rather let his music do the talking.

And I disagree with GAR that the artist isn't there to please me personally. I think that there is certainly freedom to do what one pleases as an artist, but you certainly must be mindful of pleasing your audience. Especially because the audience is your livelihood as an artist. If you continually piss them off then you're not a very smart one. I think a large portion of accepting money from strangers who are paying to watch you perform is to please them personally. It's sort of manipulative. For instance, if I go see Mono, or Explosions, or Sigur Ros, who either don't have lyrics or use a made up language, I would be shocked if there was a political discussion. I would go to that show expecting to hear the music I enjoy, not hear the artists(whom never speak anyway in the music) rant abuot their personal beliefs.

Also, I think Jurado is saying that at a show is not the time and place. Clearly he doesn't think speaking in a magazine about music violates this. Jurado was not performing for PASTE. He was interviewed. That being the case, they're wanting his opinions. I am sure if PASTE interviewed Mr. Oberst, Jurado would have no problem with him spouting off his political views. I can't really speak for Jurado, but that seems to be the case. I don't even think Jurado has a problem with songs being political, lyrically and such. That would disregard people like Dylan and all. I think it would be an ignorant statement by Jurado. However, I think he's talking about the actual preaching that has nothing to do with the music or the show, outside of it being the personal opinion of the artist. It's much like when Alec Baldwin or Jennifer Aniston use their fame as a platform to tell the public what their duty is. Why should I care about what an actor thinks. Just because American culture places importance on Hollywood actors and pays them out the ass for it doesn't mean I want to hear their personal opinion about things. It's not as though I am going to say, "Oh shit, Keanu Reeves thinks I should vote Kerry then I must", or "Oh shit, Jeff Buckley thinks I should vote Kerry then I must".

I am rambling now. I am done.

I never said that the performer isn't there to please

Bob Dylan was NEVER a protest singer

Listen to "Let's Not Shit Ourselves" and re-assess your Bright Eyes statement

wait, why are we getting on-stage banter and lyrical content mixed up?

Hell, if anything I think there should be MORE people expressing their opinions from the stage - as long as people have some idea of what they're talking about.

The real problems occur when you have mongoloids like Fred Durst up there trying it.

Bright Eyes can talk about whatever he wants in his songs. If one or a handful of songs are political in nature, then wonderful. However, I said, primarily wrote songs political in nature. That's different then the handful of songs that Bright Eyes may have.

I don't know what you mean by "protest singer" so I can't respond to that at all.

Oh, and I thought that it was you that said "an artist doesn't have to please you personally, etc" in response to Aarons post. If it wasn't you, then my apologies sir.

Any references Jurado makes to banter, if that's what they are, are vague and could also apply to lyrics: "opening mouth... public arena in music..."

This doesn't change how kick-ass of a song "Abilene" is. Just sayin'.