|
Editorial
Warning! Politically Incorrect: Politics and Music
The assorted special interest wonks, spinmeisters and their devoted legion of unquestioning followers are at it again.
Despite a very long and storied history to the contrary, they’ve now declared that politics and music no longer mix. The combination has now been added to the ever-expanding “politically incorrect” list. It’s too controversial. It’s too provocative. It’s too dangerous- it may cause people to stop, think about things and form their own conclusions. It could lead to the destruction of all the deceptive smoke and mirrors that have been so very carefully laid out and foisted upon the masses by various propaganda spewing special interest machines- both political and corporate.
Before music became just another moneymaking “business,” it came from the “common man,” not only in this country, but also throughout the world, who with their sweat, blood, sacrifice and very often their lives, built those countries and lived with the consequences of decisions made by politicians and businessmen. That music provides a rich history and much insight- eyewitness accounts of the times. It was through song that the various struggles and victories, hopes and dreams of the “common man” were told. It’s a raw chronicle of history left behind, as told through the eyes of the people who lived through it- not some governmentally cleansed alternate version.
Most of the “politically” themed music that came out post-WWII is positively tame and mild-mannered when compared to the scathing statements made in music that came out during the Great Depression. I’m sure most Americans today are quite unaware that Woody Guthrie’s now patriotic anthem, “This Land Is Your Land,” originally began as his angry rebuttal to Irving Berlin’s utopian, jingoistic “God Bless America.” That’s not the America that Woody saw in his travels. The America he saw was in his original draft of the lyrics that included verses like: “One bright sunny morning in the shadow of the steeple/By the Relief Office I saw my people -- As they stood hungry, I stood there wondering if [God blessed America for me.].” At the bottom of that original draft he scribbled the words, “All you can write is what you see.”
Music has always been something that people with a common cause rallied around. Music was born out of the work fields, churches and porches. Much of that music was adapted to and used in various causes that people united together for in the name of social change- oppression, poverty, civil rights, unions and fair working conditions, child labor, equality and war. It wasn’t our soldiers who fought these wars- it was the “common man.” Politicians didn’t change these things until the “common man” rallied together to make these changes happen.
Let me make one thing clear. I pledge my allegiance to America and not to any person or political party. I am a registered independent. What that means is I have no affiliation with any political party. I’m more than quite capable of thinking for myself and don’t need anyone or any organization to tell me how I should think. Depending on the issue, sometimes my leanings are liberal, sometimes conservative, and sometimes I walk straight down the middle line. Life has always been far more complicated than can ever be simplified in terms of either “black” or “white.” That’s the beauty of being an American. Our Constitution was written to embrace the whole spectrum of “gray.”
I’m also sick to death of the ongoing sham known as the “Great Dixie Chick Controversy.” And although what I’m writing is making reference to it, the issue has long ago ceased being about the Chicks. It’s much bigger and much more insidious. It’s about double standards. It’s about the blurring of lines. It’s about deliberate manipulation. It’s about the “business” of pushing personal agendas under the guise of “public interest.”
What prompted me to write this, is two opinion pieces that were posted April 17th on AllAboutCountry.com, a website that’s geared to radio industry types, ironically on the same day. Both were deeply disturbing and biased bits of commentary written about the newly re-ignited Dixie Chicks “controversy.” The first was submitted from a blog rambling by Mike and Dana Lawrence, who do mornings and program directing at Kicks 99.1 (KHKS-FM), titled “Time To Play The Dixie Chicks…We’re Not Ready!” Mark O’Brien, a writer for the Pensacola News Journal, submitted the second one, titled “Musicians Should Focus on Making More Music, Fewer Speeches.” Both illustrate the fallacy that a “liberal” media has seized control of the information highway, and instead simply prove that the only thing the American public is stuck with is a completely dysfunctional media. No longer are facts simply reported. Instead “facts” are converted into out-of-context sound bites that are then cherry picked and manipulated to further various personal agendas. That it has anything to do with “public interest” is nothing but a farce.
In the case of the Lawrence’s, they state in defense of not playing the Chicks, “Rather than make a snap decision, once again we polled our audience on the article for their opinions and thoughts. With one exception, after over 30 calls in 15 minutes, everyone said ‘Nix to the Chicks!’” and “like an election, we have to follow the majority vote. In this case now, as it was three years ago when the whole Chicks-thing started, we have to decline playing the song. Like some elections and laws, it might not always be the right thing to do, but since this is a democracy, you go with the majority rule.”
First, I have to ask, why is a radio station polling its listeners on an article as to whether or not to play a song? How does one possibly pertain to the other? Next I have to ask, does their station also routinely have votes for each and every performer and song they play…or does this method of “democracy” only pertain to the Dixie Chicks? If each and every other performer and song being played isn’t held to the same set of rules, then how can they possibly make an honest case for “democracy” and “majority rule” without making themselves the ultimate hypocrites? If Merle releases, “Where’s All The Freedom,” off of his latest album Chicago Wind, would that song simply be played or would it too be put up for a vote after polling their listeners for thoughts and opinions on some of his interviews and website postings over the past few years?
Or would the answer be “neither,” since Merle himself, along with a countless number of his peers, were unceremoniously and abruptly yanked from the airwaves, (some of whom were still charting at the time) in the early 90s, in favor of across the board “Young Country” formats, which later gave way to the “Hot New Country” format, for no reason other than a “business” decision? Were they as responsive to the majority’s dissent over that decision, as they are now to a much lesser dissent in regard to a single performer? While performers like Merle, Willie, Waylon, Jones, et al, may have been in the sunset years of the commercial radio success phase of their careers, instead of being allowed to gradually and gracefully fade from the charts in the natural cycle as their predecessors were- they were forced into “early retirement.” And given the quality of many of their subsequent releases, were they really in their sunset years? That’s something neither they, nor we will ever know, since none of us were given the chance to find out. It was decided for us- the majority- by the business decisions of a select few.
If the majority really rules as the Lawrence’s claim, then the landscape of radio today would be a radically different place than it is. The cream would have rightly risen to the top, while the sediment rightly settled to the bottom, instead of the other way around. Performers like the Haggards, Joneses, Nelsons, et al, would have never been yanked from the airwaves in lieu of narrow, exclusionary formats and would still be heard among the newer performers. Two steppers and 4/4 shuffles would still be heard among the pop drum loops and rock guitar riffs. And radio wouldn’t be so worried about the bottom line these days, because they wouldn’t have lost all those millions of listeners when radio became a dictatorship. What lobbyists are to politicians, sponsors are to “businesses.” In the current “business is business” climate, neither anyone nor anything else matters.
The silent majority is called that for a reason. Unfortunately the mistake they make is that they perceive the vocal minority to be the actual majority. This point can be illustrated through the fact that the station the Lawrence’s work for, serves an area of approximately 200,800, 12+ people and whose rating averages 5.5. I fathom a guess that after their opinion piece appeared on the AllAboutCountry site, they received enough negative feedback that they decided to extend the “voting” for another week- via a general news/entertainment website, mywesttexas.com. After the week was up, the poll resulted in “less than 500 votes”- in an area that serves a potential audience of nearly 201,000 people over the age of 12. Hardly what even approaches an overwhelming number in light of the hoopla, especially when you factor in that anyone from anywhere, regardless of whether they were an actual listener of that station or not, could cast a vote, and that it was an online poll, which immediately eliminates any people without access to a computer. The poll still resulted in more “nays” than “yays,” so the decision to deliberately exclude this song from airplay stood. Out of an area that serves 200,800 people, and having an average 5.5 rating, after a week of “democratic” open voting, they honestly believe less than 350 votes of undetermined origin represents a majority? Was it merely ironic that at the very same time this was going on, “Not Ready To Make Nice” sat at #1 on iTunes country chart and at #4 on Sirius’ New Country channel? And I’ve been hearing the song frequently played on various college and web stations. I’d say that pretty much goes to show just how irrelevant commercial terrestrial radio’s really become, and that there’s millions of people out there “not ready to make nice” with radio after the way they’ve succeeded in alienating the majority of radio listeners by choosing the bottom line over them years ago.
It’s not the Chicks who won’t let the “controversy” die- it’s the media who continues to feed off of it for their own self-serving purposes. It was the media who created the “controversy” to begin with. We’re all quite aware of why the Chicks released “Not Ready to Make Nice” as the lead off single. The radio industry is quite aware of why too. And as expected, instead of simply treating it like any other song, and letting it either become a hit or fade from the charts on it’s own, stations like this used it for self-promoting purposes. Why else would anyone deliberately call more attention to a “controversy” that they claim they would like an end to, by singling it out and shining a great big spotlight on it? Calculated manipulation. The Lawrence’s also claim that they, along with many other program directors, feel there are 3 or 4 other songs on the album that could be potential hits off the Chicks upcoming album that avoid “re-opening old wounds.” Obviously they haven’t listened closely enough, because despite not being quite as explicit as “Not Ready To Make Nice,” the songs on the album revolve around what they’ve endured over the course of the past 3 years. Interestingly, the “shut up and sing” crowd got what they wanted- the Chicks put what they have to say into their songs- and they still have a problem with it. Let’s be honest here, at this point, neither the Chicks nor radio cares if the song becomes a hit. The Lawrence’s, and the rest of the people in the media industry of their ilk, are guilty of needlessly (or further) trying to incite people, where “business is business,” actually means deliberate manipulation. They create sensationalism for no other reason than a grab for ratings and to pump up the almighty bottom line…and maybe a little self-gratification via a “radio station/personality of the year award” to boot.
Which brings me to O’Brien’s comments- he being of the “shut up and sing” school of thought. He sings the hosannas of Merle Haggard, Bob Dylan and Willie Nelson as being performers and songwriters who make it clear where they stand through their music and not through their speech. I’m not exactly sure where Mr. O’Brien’s been for the past few years- or decades. Dylan is Dylan and I don’t think even Dylan knows where he stands. Nevertheless, Dylan will forever be known as the poster boy and soundtrack to the Civil Rights Movement and Vietnam anti-war protests. And Willie…exactly what does Mr. O’Brien think Farm Aid is? It was born in 1985 on behalf of independent farmers as direct political response to government policies put in place, particularly Reagan’s, which unfairly favored corporate farmers to the detriment of independent family farmers who were being usurped by corporate farms at an alarming rate. Guess what? Willie, John Mellencamp, Neil Young, and all the other performers who’ve taken part over the years, used their music and their “celebrity” voices to call attention to the problem and thus, mixed politics with music…and they were viewed as working class heroes. And more recently, Willie openly supported the Texas state Democrats when they left the state in an attempt to scuttle a vote on the GOP’s blatant power grab, otherwise known as election precinct “re-districting.” Willie also openly campaigned for presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich. And Willie got bashed from here to kingdom come for a little ditty he wrote on Christmas day in 2003 titled, “Whatever Happened to Peace on Earth,” that questioned war, called for peace and which he performed at a Kucinich fundraiser.
O’Brien references Merle’s “Okie From Muskogee” and “Fightin’ Side Of Me,” while completely ignoring Merle’s most recent songs, “That’s The News,” “Rebuild America First,” or most notably- “Where’s All The Freedom,” as well as the fact that Merle has made stage comments while introducing the songs. O’Brien makes clear his own utter disdain for the Chicks, but neglects to mention Merle’s very vocal and ferocious defense of them- and every other performer who’s been attacked for simply voicing a dissenting view. Or of Merle’s countless interviews in which he hasn’t minced words regarding exactly where he stands today- which is utter disgust with the current state of affairs in this country. Which is a stronger statement- simply stating that one is embarrassed by the actions of the President as Natalie did, or stating that one is seriously contemplating moving to another country because they are disgusted by what’s happening in this country and the direction it’s going, as Merle did?
So I don’t quite understand what the difference is whether the performer presents his views in a song or simply speaks them. If someone doesn’t like the “message,” they’re not going to like it whichever way it’s delivered. And what makes Natalie’s comment “un-American” and fuels such irrationally excessive scorn, but Merle gets a pass? And please, it’s time to give the “said it on foreign soil” thing a rest already and put it into context. The “offended” crowd makes it seem as though Natalie deliberately went out of the country before making what amounts to a benign, off the cuff comment, when in fact they were in the midst of the overseas leg of their tour. If those who took offense to Natalie’s comment were more offended by this woman trying to reach out and articulate to people of another country- as a great many of us did both here and abroad- that she did not share Bush’s views and was embarrassed by his behavior- particularly after he publicly bashed, berated, belittled and generally insulted everyone in the international community who were unconvinced of any “imminent threat,” and questioned the reasoning and timing of it (after all, the job in Afghanistan, which was fully supported, was not finished and “bin Laden- dead or alive” was still on the loose), than by the disgraceful behavior Bush exhibited with the disparaging comments he made towards the international community, and didn’t find that the least bit embarrassing…then I’m with Merle, and I seriously don’t know what this country has become in the past few years, because it sure ain’t the America I knew. Contrary to O’Brien’s statement, at that time, the polls across the board showed 80+% of Americans were opposed to invading Iraq. The polls didn’t swing the other way until after the deed was done, and since there was no turning back, many people felt a patriotic obligation to support it. The supposed “liberal” media however, chose to play up the minority extremist element in this country…the ones who were smashing cases of German beer, flushing bottles of French wine down toilets, and circulating lists of companies from “non-participating” countries to be boycotted…and were eventually organizing the smashing of Dixie Chick CDs. Smoke and mirrors.
While O’Brien admits that Toby Keith pandered to the “shut up and sing” crowd by building his entire stage show around bashing people with opposing viewpoints as “un-American,” Natalie uttered ONE off the cuff remark (that neither bashed America, Americans or American soldiers), ONE time during ONE show, yet she gets the brunt of his venomous comments. And he leaves the distinct- and false- impression that any concert where a performer makes any sort of political comment, is in reality, a political rally disguised as a concert- something that couldn’t be further from the truth. O’Brien is under the belief that people attend concerts and want to see and hear what amounts to human karaoke, and that none of the performer’s personality or views should slip out. However the reality is, people attend concerts because they’ve connected with certain performers, enjoy and relate to their music, and they want to connect with the human side of the performer- get to know them better, see what makes them tick. If that weren’t the case, since tickets are expensive these days, people would just stay home and listen to the CD. At Christmastime, many performers sing Christmas songs. Not everyone in the audience celebrates Christmas. Many performers have recorded gospel albums in addition to their usual secular work and will often perform a few of those songs. Not everyone is of the same faith- or any faith. Stage banter usually takes place during the course of those types of songs, yet somehow people who don’t share those views don’t get riled up, and instead respect the performer’s right to express his (hers or theirs). If people find being briefly exposed to a viewpoint they don’t share to be that utterly intolerable, I find it very sad, but they should by all means just buy the CDs and leave the tickets for people who can.
It’s this kind of stuff that’s become the root of the problem. The lines have been blurred. People confuse “opinion” with “fact,” “bloggers, editorialists, and talk show hosts” with “news reporters.” People like O’Brien, who writes an opinion column, slam other people for airing their views, while they’re doing the same exact thing as those they slam. They’re no more qualified or have more of a right to air their views than any other American- period. And his is a good example of cherry picking facts- taking only those that support his opinion, while ignoring all the ones that contradict it. It’s more often what’s not written that proves to be the most misleading and manipulative. There are extremists on every side, but the vast majority of Americans fall right in the middle. All celebrities are not stupid; there are many who are highly educated and extremely knowledgeable, and I can name quite a few off the top of my head who’ve served in government, elected freely by the American people…including one who made it all the way to the Presidency- a fact that, over the past few years, has been conveniently ignored. And being a politician doesn’t automatically make that person either smart or informed. Witness the fact that the Patriot Act was passed by the majority in Congress, despite the fact that among those who passed it, not a single one of them even read it before they voted to approve it. And it appears to me, that a certain segment of average American citizens seem to have been a lot better informed on Iraq than anyone in this government was. And seriously people, celebrities speaking their minds are the least of your worries- unless they run and are elected to office, they don’t make or affect government policy. It’s all those lobbyists who are your real threat- they simply buy government policy and do affect it.
So really, the controversy isn’t about the Dixie Chicks and never really was. Up until “the comment,” they’ve never even done a song remotely political, and probably never would have if they weren’t transformed into scapegoats to be used by various agenda pushers. Scandal, sensationalism and adversity sell newspapers, lights up the internet, and attract TV audiences and radio listeners. They first tried making Steve Earle their target, but after they found out who Steve was, decided it best not to mess with him and backed off. Besides, he wasn’t well known to mainstream America and so probably wouldn’t attract much attention. Then there was Springsteen. But at this stage, he’s pretty bulletproof. Although he’s never been overtly political, his fan base knows where he stands. And because he’s never taken an openly political stand before, when he did, his fans knew it was it wasn’t something frivolous or self-indulgent, but something he put a lot of weight into- so it was unlikely his fans would turn on him. Then along came the Dixie Chicks…and the media had their perfect sitting ducks. And the government comfortably sat back and watched while the media effectively fanned the flames of the mass paranoia and hysteria it created to push through its agenda.
“The Dixie Chicks” has simply become the new name of another controversy that’s actually called “double standards.” Why is music by people like the Dixie Chicks or John Mellencamp being singled out and put up for “votes,” while the music of people like Toby Keith and Darryl Worley isn’t? Why is it that people who don’t share the viewpoints of jingoists are told to either change the channel or listen to their CDs, yet people who don’t share a dissenting viewpoint aren’t told to do likewise and therefore get to determine- not what gets played, but what doesn’t get played? Why is it that suddenly radio is so overly responsive to a certain group of “offended” listeners, but others who for years have voiced their dissent and discontent with formats and playlists are ignored or told to listen to their CDs if they don’t like it? Why do we keep getting Rascal Flatts and Big & Rich when we want to hear Merle and Cash? Or at least if we have to hear the former- why can’t we also hear the latter? What about all of the celebrities who’ve devoted themselves to the good work of social causes and humanitarian issues? Why is it no one seems to have a problem with them giving their time and money and using their “celebrity platform” to draw attention to and raise money for those things- but now politics is off limits? No one questions Willie on the plight of the American farmer, but object when he writes a song about peace. Why is it when the Chicks said they no longer felt a part of the country music community, their words were twisted and distorted and then used against them as meaning something very different than what they’d actually said, but when Merle recently stated, “I don’t even consider myself country anymore. I identify more with what’s happening in rock and roll right now, and it’s the rock people who seem to identify with me the most, and treat me with some sort of respect. The country people are out to use my name for different things if they can, and the rock and roll people seem to just like me for who I am,” it was simply written off, as by the Lawrence’s, that perhaps he was just having a bad day.
It’s all about the money, honey. They’ll use whatever and whomever they can that’ll turn them a profit without the slightest regard to who and what gets trampled in the process. And so in the words of Woody Guthrie…all you can write is what you see. |
