Artists and Political Editorials

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 14 Jan 2003 10:39 am

It's one thing if their music or movies make a political statement, but when the artist puts their personal politics out there -- because they can -- then I figure I'm justified in not supporting their careers if I disagree.

Sorry to get a little off topic, but seeing a photo of Cheryl Crow's "War Is Not The Answer" shirt got me thinking that it wasn't really relevant to the American Music Awards.

On the other hand, if she writes a song that makes a political statement, then more power to her. I'll buy it or I won't. She's earned an audience with her music not her political commentary.

------------------
HagFan

[This message was edited by Ron Page on 14 January 2003 at 10:40 AM.]

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 14 Jan 2003 1:19 pm

Ron, I agree that sometimes an artist's political or social views can certainly be irritating. One such artist who comes to mind I'm sure for more than a few people is Sinaid O'Connor (or whatever her name is). The thing that was particularly irking about her was that she loved to bash the USA while at the same time enjoying our milk and honey. My opinion of MC Hammer went up a notch when I heard that he offered to buy Ms. O'Connor a one-way ticket back to Ireland (or whereever she was from).

Another such irksome character in my opinion is Bono of U2. He jetsets around the world bashing all the industrialized countries for whatever reason he can think up, while at the same time counting his millions of dollars he earned from those same countries.

Stephen Gambrell · Post by **Stephen Gambrell** » 14 Jan 2003 9:07 pm

Well said, Tom. I knew there was something about Bono I didn't like(besides his music, and that pretentious "one-name" thing), and you've put your finger on it, I remember seeing a cool photo in Guitar Player a few years ago. Somebody was doing a documentary on U2, and they were in Antone's in Austin, where Jimmie Vaughan, maybe Buddy Guy----you know, blues greats. Jimmie was playing lap steel, and Bono had gotten onstage to "improvise" some blues lyrics. The look on Jimmie Vaughan's face was priceless!

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 14 Jan 2003 10:21 pm

If we have another war will they make me listen Lee Greenwood again ?

Bob

Alvin Blaine · Post by **Alvin Blaine** » 14 Jan 2003 11:54 pm

My favorite VH1 moment was a Dave Matthews unpluged show. He was standing up there, with an old D-35 Martin, talking about the rain forest and how the people cutting down all those trees should be shot! If he thinks like that he should be playing a Ovation, not a guitar made with wood from the rain forest.

Chris Forbes · Post by **Chris Forbes** » 15 Jan 2003 3:48 am

Q) What's the difference between Bono and God? A)God doesn't think he's Bono

Bob Blair · Post by **Bob Blair** » 15 Jan 2003 6:13 am

Is the problem that you have with the message, or the fact that the artist has chosen to be a messenger? People who are in a position to use their high profile to advance a personal message that they believe often do. CEO's do it, so do artists. How many times has a country star laid a religious message on you in the context of between song patter? Or a political message of some sort? It happens all the time in the world of country music! [This message was edited by Bob Blair on 15 January 2003 at 06:37 AM.]

Bobby Lee · Post by **Bobby Lee** » 15 Jan 2003 10:37 am

Some famous people like to "lend their celebrity" to help causes that they believe in. There's nothing wrong with doing that, in my mind. It's risky from a business standpoint, though. Jane Fonda's Vietnam antics cost her a fotune at the box office, and I'm sure that k.d. lang's outspoken vegetarianism hurt her record sales.

On the other hand, if you know that your fan base agrees with you, there is little risk to the celebrity and great benefits to the cause. Paul McCartney's "No More Land Mines" crusade comes to mind. Very few Beatle fans would disagree with his position on that one.

------------------
<img align=right src="http://b0b.com/b0b.gif" width="64" height="64">Bobby Lee - email: quasar@b0b.com - gigs - CDs
Sierra Session 12 (E9), Williams 400X (Emaj9, D6), Sierra Olympic 12 (F Diatonic), Sierra Laptop 8 (D13), Fender Stringmaster (E13, A6), Roland Handsonic

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Jan 2003 11:26 am

I have absolutely no problem at all with an artist using his or her celebrity status to advance a cause.

What I don't like (and I think this is also reflected by some of the other posters above) is when an artist is using his or her celebrity status to advance a cause, while at the same time coming across as a complete hypocite.

There's a difference.

If an artist moves from her home country to another country and lives there while bashing the hell out of it -- that's hypocritical.

If an artist flys around the world like a rich sheik, all the while bashing industrialized countries for the evil capitalist ways, that is hypocritical.

If an artist plays a guitar made of Honduran mahogany, while bashing the havesting of Honduran mahogany trees, that is hypocritical.

If an artist makes a record pubicizing the plight of homeless people and bashing the public for ignoring the homeless, while at the same time taking in substantially more revenue from that record than he donates for the cause, that is hypocritical.

If an artist chooses to use his or her celebrity status to advance animal rights, and that artist does not eat meat, does not use any type of leather product, does not use any medication that was developed using animal testing, then that is NOT hypocritical.

Of course, this is just my personal opinion and I totally respect any opinion of any individual which may differ from my opinion. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 15 January 2003 at 11:39 AM.]

Rick Collins · Post by **Rick Collins** » 15 Jan 2003 11:52 am

If the U.S. goes to war with Iraq and our victory produces bin Laden, (that Saddam was hiding him out) and then terrorism ceases; will Cheryl Crow then eat crow?

Jim Cohen · Post by **Jim Cohen** » 15 Jan 2003 12:02 pm

If an artist chooses to use his or her celebrity status to advance animal rights, and that artist does not eat meat, does not use any type of leather product, does not use any medication that was developed using animal testing, then that is NOT hypocritical.

That's a bit extreme, in my mind. I support improving gas mileage in cars as quickly as possible, but does that mean that I have to forego driving or riding in any cars until the gas mileage improves? The willingness to do some things to improve things does not necessarily (to me) imply an obligation to do everything. (Your mileage may vary.

)

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Jan 2003 1:12 pm

Jim -- good point, and I respect your opinion

OK -- I agree my animal rights example may be a bit extreme, but I was basically using it as an illustrative example.

There's a difference in wanting to improve a situation and being a total hypocrite.

For example, if a celebrity truly believes in animal rights while taking medication developed from animal testing, I would not call that celbrity a hypocrite if that celebrity kept his/her beliefs to themselves, OR if he/she made large donations to the cause AND publically acknowledged the fact that there was presently no practical alternative to animal testing and that he/she was (or had been) taking such medication.

Hypocritical behavior would be if the celebrity publically bashed the testing of animals while taking medication developed through animal testing OR if they never acknowledged that there was no practical solution and that many people depended on such medications.

Using your example -- wanting a car with better gas milage while using a car is not being hypocritical at all. In fact, I think that's a pretty much universal desire. Wanting a car with better gas milage while you drive a car is similar to saying "I want cheaper Honduran mahogany guitars" while playing a guitar made of Honduran mahogany.

Hypocritical behavior, in my estimation, is when a first person publically condemns the actions of another person or group of people, while at the same time that first person derives some benefit from those other people and/or those actions he/she is condemning, and/or if that first person's actions and/or lifestyle is not consistent with the principles being espoused by that first person. [This message was edited by Tom Olson on 15 January 2003 at 01:39 PM.]

Gary Carriger · Post by **Gary Carriger** » 15 Jan 2003 2:31 pm

While I too get upset with "political" statements from celebrities, my reasons may vary somewhat. First of all most of these highly political stars do not live any semblance of a real life. They are generally highly compensated, and generally removed from the normal difficulties of life that the "small people" suffer through - i.e. you and me. How could they possibly understand my motivations - or me theirs?
However, they are entitled to their opinions.
What upsets me, though, is realizing that there are apparently large segments of our society that will form a political opinion soley from input from entertainers, athletes, stars, etc. These are the ones with which I find fault.
Gary

Ron Page · Post by **Ron Page** » 15 Jan 2003 2:52 pm

If it's in the product, e.g. Lee Greenwood's song, then that's not the issue I was raising.

If it's a passing comment introducing a song or a movie then so be it. If it's a repetititive campaign or prepeared "speech" (or printed tee-shirt) that's what I'm getting at.

Admitedly I take greater exception to the practice if I don't agree with their message or viewpoint. That's life!

Like Hanoi Jane, they need to be prepared to pay the price, and they should do it without badgering their (former) fans for not being "open-minded".

And while we're on the subject, has Alec Baldwin left yet?

[This message was edited by Ron Page on 15 January 2003 at 02:54 PM.]

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 15 Jan 2003 4:15 pm

I have some thoughts on the above comments but I am hesitant to post since another politically oriented thread was recently closed as follows......

........"This is the Steel Guitar Forum. There are plenty of other places on the Internet to discuss war and political issues, including our own Off Topic forum.
I'm closing this topic". System Aministrator.........

Do I detect some inconsistancy?

Gene Jones

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Jan 2003 4:25 pm

-- another example of this topic is the celebrities who were against military action in Afghanistan and/or who are against potential military action in Iraq. These same celebrities are the ones who travel around with enterages of body guards and who have bullet-proof vehicles and who may or may not have accused the government of not doing enough to prevent 9/11. Hey, I have an idea -- maybe if we bombard Iraq with Sinaid O'Connor CD's and Alec Baldwin videos, that will prevent Saddam from supporting terrorists and building weapons of mass destruction.

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Jan 2003 4:26 pm

Gene -- I've seen the same thread, and I predict that this thread has headed down the wrong path and is now in it's last few minutes of life.

Joey Ace · Post by **Joey Ace** » 15 Jan 2003 4:38 pm

Interesting "Grey Area", Tom and Gene.

The definition of the MUSIC section is

"Musical topics not directly related to steel guitar"

hmmmm... it's not my call.

In response to the original question:
I think an artist has the same right as anyone to express a political view.

I never understood why anyone would care, but a lot of people do. Why if someone is a great musician, or whatever, do we care what they think of political issues?

Tom Olson · Post by **Tom Olson** » 15 Jan 2003 7:16 pm

Joey -- I agree that it's within anyone's rights, including musicians, to make whatever statements they want. I'll be the first to admit that I've been known to make a hypocritical statement or two. I'm not saying I hate such people or that they have no rights to say what they say.

My point has nothing to do with whether I agree or disagree with any particular artist's statement. My point was just that some highly public statements made by some artists come across to me as being hypocritical and it seems like one would be more careful about such things. But, then again, maybe such things are just a way of getting publicity or attention. Hypocrits can still make good music though. I think some of U2's stuff is pretty good

[This message was edited by Tom Olson on 15 January 2003 at 08:18 PM.]

b0b · Post by **b0b** » 15 Jan 2003 8:42 pm

I hadn't thought of it that way, Gene. As I read it, this topic is mostly about singers musicians. I'll close it if people want me to, though, or Janice can close it if she feels it's too far off topic.

------------------
<img align=left src="http://b0b.com/coolb0b2.gif" border="0"> Bobby Lee
-b0b- quasar@b0b.com 
-System Administrator[This message was edited by b0b on 15 January 2003 at 08:44 PM.]

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 15 Jan 2003 9:51 pm

If it's in the product, e.g. Lee Greenwood's song, then that's not the issue I was raising.

Dang ! I knew it. Lee Greenwood is coming back...again.

Pray for peace !

Bob

Gene Jones · Post by **Gene Jones** » 16 Jan 2003 5:37 am

..... I'll close it if people want me to, though, or Janice can close it if she feels it's too far off topic......

b0b I wasn't seeking closure of this thread, on the contrary, I find the comments interesting and entertaining.

My only point was that sometimes the policy of what is acceptable to post is an abstraction that tends to either discourage commentary or results in closure of a thread.........this sometimes leaves the commentators feeling as if they have been unfairly admonished.

I'm sure that it's a difficult call some of the time, and I'm just thankful that I don't have to make those decisions!

Gene

Derek Duplessie · Post by **Derek Duplessie** » 18 Jan 2003 10:55 pm

It's a drag because almost everyone I like (Tom
petty,Radney Foster,Mary Chapin Carpenter,
Emmylou Harris, etc.) is a communist. The only
conservatives are stupid "mocho" country people
like Brooks and Dunn. Hopefully people will come
around eventually!!! -Derek

Bob Hoffnar · Post by **Bob Hoffnar** » 20 Jan 2003 1:33 pm

Derek,

Your comment makes me wonder. Lee Greenwood sings about being proud to be an American but he has a short beard and wears turtleneck sweaters just like the communists do !

Bob

Bob Blair · Post by **Bob Blair** » 20 Jan 2003 3:45 pm

And don't forget that Santa Claus wears a red suit.