Facebook
Here’s an amusing, but pathetic Boston Globe article on fans upset when their musical idols go political.
I could perhaps excuse the confusion when it comes to Bruce Springsteen, who, in spite of a too-obvious liberal bent has wasted much of his career supporting class society by lionising the middle class and its dependency on auto factories, which are little more than work prisons. By so pliantly acquiesing to their base desires for stadium “rock” parties, he lost his chance to really reach them. When Reagan commandeered “Born in the USA” no one noticed the difference.
But as far as acts like Pearl Jam and R.E.M. go, what the fuck were these “fans” thinking? As if any of them ever really did think beyond their need to be part of the herd. The whole pop culture of the 1960s was driven by needs for personal freedom. Not only were individual freedoms at stake, but actual lives. This is the basis of the much of the best that pop music has had to offer ever since; it echoes in everything from Bob Dylan to Radiohead. Those who threaten freedom deserve to be denounced, especially as a potential creeping dictatorship would threaten the ability for a conscientious musician to be able to perform and record in the first place.
I had the displeasure of attempting to convey these obvious facts to a would-be socialite who boozed her way through scores of concerts in the 1970s and ’80s, but her only defense was one similar to the whining backlash over the Vote for Change announcement: they’re simply entertainers. In other words, we own them; our rock stars are court jesters at our collective beck and call, and we have the right to dictate what they say. The arrogance of these Republi-fen is astonishing… and of course this is the basis for not dissimilar stuggles against censorship, because they’re prudes and phonies who like to brag about past excess but are as conservative as their parents, if not moreso.
The Geoff Edgers article quotes Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, who lamented Springsteen’s public stance by saying “I really appreciate his music, but I wish he wouldn’t interject his music with politics.” (Apparently Governor Pawlenty had no problem injecting his politics with someone else’s music, since he opened his weekly radio address with Springsteen’s “Born to Run”.) Insomuch as music is language, it expresses things; that’s its function. Ultimately the expression is always “me” or “us” versus “them”.
It only disturbs me in that most of the Vote for Change lineup is uncreative, except for the extraordinary John Fogerty.
