these guys sure do bring up conor oberst a lot.

That's a good point for sure. He is somewhat confusing, I'd agree.

OK, NOTHING BOB DYLAN EVER WROTE IS INHERENTLY POLITICAL

(site Hurricane, Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll, hell even Blowin in the Wind if you want, but those songs, to Bob, always carried more of a minstrel/story song quality. same with George Jackson)

what makes a band inherently political? Straight Edge Hard Core? I just don't see what the huge leap is from people speaking out against the president on stage and this dude speaking out against them speaking out in a magazine. they are both public forums that none of these people would be provided if it weren't for the music they make.

Now, is it RIGHT that we accord celebrity with having a legitimate opinion? Of Course not, but this is the real world, and we don't make the rules, jocko.

oddly, I think all the anti-Bush stuff from performers did more to turn people off than on.

I disagree. The songs you mention are not political. I would also throw in With God on Our Side and A Hard Rain's gonna fall as not being political.

However songs like Who Killed Davey Moore, Talkin John Birch Paranoid Blues, and Talking Bear Moutain Massacre were very political. Those songs are lesser known, but are defintely political espically Talking John Birch Blues.

I would also argue that the reason those songs are not as popular today is b/c they are dated b/c of their politics. Where other songs like Blowin in the Wind and With God on Our Side transcends politics. They could be sung now, 200 yrs ago, and probably 200 yrs from now, and still resonate. They are songs about humanity and truth.

Here's the thing for me. I have no problem with any band sticking their opinions about anything in banter between songs or interviews. Some of it I'll agree with, some I won't. They have the right to say whatever they want.

At a live show, I hope they keep in mind that we paid money to see them play music, not lecture about politics. pop culture etc, so keep it brief and whenever possible witty.

Now, if an artist wants to be overtly political at a show, be like Sage Francis and do it as part of your show at the merch tables (petitions & information) and keep it permanent. I too, couldn't stand a bunch of dudes who got on stage and railed on Bush last year, but had never uttered a political comment in their life, and haven't made one since. In teh wrestling world, that's called a cheap pop, in the rock world, it's called posing for easy attention.


Damien is one of the most accessible people in the music world. His son keeps him from being out at shows like he used to in Seattle, but when he is out, he'll let you know how he feels about just about anything. He's a good dude.

Hmmmm....

I have confused myself over this thread.

I think it's safe to say that some of Ani DiFranco's songs are political.

... which is why i think it's important to note the diff between lyrical content and banter. also the intention of the show.

for instance, if i went to the vote for change tour, i'd expect some political banter and political-driven songs. if i went to a boss concert instead of the vote for change tour, i'm less likely paying for political banter, though i might expect some political songs. if i went to a christina aguilera concert, i would expect no political songs, banter (or much of anything, really).

if i went to a quasi show, i KNOW sam coomes is gonna play some anti-bush sentiment and shout "!@#$ you dubya" every few seconds in the midst of a slow bridge. but i don't want to necessarily hear sam coomes banter about how this country's going to hell, and the economics are all wrong and the environment is getting polluted and save the whales between songs. i wouldn't want that out of jurado either. its a fine line. if you know an artist has political/religious songs, then i don't blame them for playing them to an audience. but don't abuse the position of entertainment power. unless i'm going to cornerstone, or a "praise Jesus" rally-show, i probably don't wanna hear preaching in between either.

Yep, and couple that with the fact that there will never be another "Revolution".

Everyone is way too placated now. "I got that rally to go to but man an OC repeat is coming on. Ahh screw it, Ima chill."

So the performer is either preaching to the choir or they are (mis?)informing a group who will never further the plan.

Maybe we could have a compromise and the artist could have a webpage and then just reference the link throughout the performance.

actually i like it when a performer's personality makes an appearance at his show.

End of thread.

yeh, but personality doesn't always = preaching. some of it is just haphazzard propaganda or rambling.

It's still sometimes better than the show they would be putting on. case in point: ryan adams

Personally, I LOVE IT when artists express political, social, critical, sports-friendly, jokey, whatever sides of their personality. Even if they come off like a dipshit sometimes - Jeff Tweedy anyone? - I have the right to disagree with what they say and delineate a political statement from the present from a song written before George W. was governor of Texas, ya know? Frankly, I find Jurado's viewpoint insulting, as it holds that we, the audience, are: A. incapable of separating the artist's views from their works; B. that we could be actively biased by the aritst in favor of accepting their viewpoint, because of our existing relation to the music; and C., the thing that REALLY pisses me off, is that he continues with the recent trend saying that "unqualified" public personalities shouldn't have the right to advocate a political view or argument...which means we should listen to who, an elected representative from one of the 2 parties? Crossfire? Op-Ed pages? Come on...saying that an artist shouldn't be trusted or taken seriously for their political viewpoint is the same thing as saying that *YOU* at home there don't have a political viewpoint worth considering, because of the same qualifications issue.

Judge people on the merits and substance of their words first, let their job or public image come second.

KPH

End of post-script to thread.

Personally, I don't care if there's banter in between songs as long as its not detracting from their time devoted to music, whether I agree with their point of view or not. What I don't like is long diatribes devoted to politics whether I agree with them or not. Michael Stipe used to be prone to rambling on for five minutes in between and it annoyed the shit of a lot of people who probably agreed with him. That's not what most people go are going for. I'm guessing that's the kind of stuff Jurado is speaking to. Personally, I'd rather hear Oberst talk than sing. You get what you deserve if you go see that clown in my opinion.




I don't have any real basis for this, but I suspect that you'd have a different point of view if you went to see Kate Bush and she rambled on for five minutes between songs about how great Bush is, and how just the war was etc. etc.

np: Magnolia Electric Co. "What Comes After the Blues"

And how come no one's said anything yet about Jurado's new album in this thread. How is it?

yeh, i guess the line's even finer when the rambling is entertaining rather than just shooting your mouth and not singing me a song. i guess i wouldn't mind a diatribe about world hunger or pro-war or save the manatees as long as it was entertaining or funny.

it'd also be great if entertainers could just pass on all their planned agenda items to me, and how much time they plan on spouting off, for my expressed approval. meh. gonna do, gonna do.

Actually it'd annoy me if anyone went on a more-than-five-minute ramble between songs, unless it were stream-of-consciousness hilarious like Robyn Hitchcock or just awesome drunken bullshit like Shane McGowan.

I'm all for being annoyed by crap people say in concerts, but I'm not for foolishness like "these artists should stop this and realize that people don't come to concerts to hear their political opinions" Because every time a lefty or righty says that kind of thing in an interview they're just as much airing their political opinion as the original artist was.

This was the point I made in the first post. Thatnk you, Spoon.


Oh, and Bruce has always done this. Give 1975-1985 Live a listen. Listen to his story about going to the draft board, and his dad, etc..try not cry.
Not overtly political, but you can see what he's getting at.

I've never heard the guy, but will make a couple comments anyway...

Art has always been and always will be political. If he hasn't figured that out, he's pretty much a moron. Sure, when people get preachy and over-the-top, it's annoying, but if politics NEVER figure into an artists work, they're not really saying much aboput the world or providing any sort of the insight that art has always been built upon. Go listen to Britney Spears if you want music devoid of political content.

And, he's a fuckin' folk singer, but doesn't think music should be political? Has he ever actually listened to folk music?

This guy sounds seriously stupid to me. Sorry.

You may have the cart before the chicken here. Maybe the fact that they can chill and watch the OC without serious concerns means that a revolution isn't entirely necessary.

I think that any suggestion that people are more complacent/less informed politically now than ever is misguided.

I don't think he's coming off right in the article b/c if you listen to an album of his, it's easy to tell that he has a very interesting perception of the world.

Hmmm. Disagree with that first sentence. I think art is a means by which to incite the general public to action or thought. However, "always has and always will be" is a bit of a stretch and a rather sweeping generalization. Are you saying then, in relation to music, if an artist is not putting politics in her lyrics or in her set breaks at a show that she is not an artist?

To the topic, I think it is inherent to music(as art) to have a message. I believe that one of the main purposes of art is to be seen, judged, and enjoyed by the "common man"(excuse the chauvenism--i tried to make it up wtih the above statement). That being the case, I think it is somewhat unreasonable to claim that "no one cares" as Jurado stated. I think there is a sense by which I, the listener, am hoping to find some sort of connection with the music or words. Emotionally, Intellectually, Politically, or Socially, no matter what the connection, I think it is somewhat pointless to go on a "rant" at a show because no doubt most of the audience is already in agreement, unless the attender is at the show strictly to heckle. If I want a rant I will listen to Lewis Black or Dennis Miller, or God save me, Bill Maher.

On the other hand, there is stuff, just like in film, that I enjoy strictly for entertainment. Some movies mean something, but some movies are just entertainment. Some music means something, some music does not. Whether or not those films and cds that don't really serve a great "human experience" purpose are art is a separate discussion.