Fight the Power? Not in the aughts

[John]

For politically aware songs, the '00s were all for naught

"Things were better in my day," is a common refrain and one that we must fight against lazily accepting. In truth, things have not always been as good as they are now. HDTV has made a sport like hockey more accessible, for instance. Music- and art-creation software packages once affordable only by big studios can be purchased by individuals, stripping away a barrier of entry into the arts. But yes, sometimes things really were better back in the day. Video game connoisseurs (if you buy the notion of such a thing) lament the loss of variety, depth, and complexity as soaring development budgets force game studios to minimize risk and create homologous products for homologous consoles.

And then there's the case of the vanishing politically aware songwriter. Now I need to note right off the top that I am not much of a music listener, so you should take my observations with a heavy dose of salt. But I do remember that some of my favorite acts from yesteryear - R.E.M., U2 (the 80s version), Live, etc. - featured songs that were very political charged (e.g. "Orange Crush", "Sunday Bloody Sunday", "10,000 Years (Peace Is Now)"), and I can't help noticing that the music I'm hearing on the radio today doesn't seem to reflect that kind of consciousness. I've found this true both in terms of pop/top 100 music (which I'm often forced to listen to) and "alternative rock" (which nowadays doesn't seem to be that much of an alternative from typical pop music).

Apparently I'm not alone in my opinion. The linked article from the Los Angels Times quotes a variety of sources within the music industry on the topic of the vanishing politically aware band. This absence stands out more starkly in light of the rise of the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has developed its own music culture yet whose impact has not been felt in the mainstream charts:

But much of the music that has topped the Billboard charts in the new millennium — Britney, Lil Wayne, Lady Gaga — might suggest that America has been one big party since 2001, despite the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, two major wars, a wobbly economy and a bitterly divided government. Likewise, the recent popular manifestations of that unrest, the tea party and Occupy Wall Street movements, so far seem to have been largely lost on popular music.

That has left some artists, music industry professionals and listeners pondering how well today's music is serving the restless masses and capturing the essence of times that indeed are a-changin'.

A variety of theories for the decline of politically conscious songs have been floated, and I can see the arguments behind several of these:

• Bands are reflecting a general apathy on the part of today's American.
• The complexity of modern politics has driven people away, and diminished attention leads to fewer songs.
• Increasingly risk-averse studios don't want to take the chance on potentially controversial bands.
• In truth, the "good ol' days" weren't nearly as politically conscious as we remember, so nothing much has really changed.

One things that people seemed to agree on is that the lowered barrier to entry for new bands in modern times means that more specialized, controversial acts can find their niche and experience success. It used to be that securing a major record deal with a studio was a band's only path to success. Today, an act can become an overnight sensation simply by releasing a great video to YouTube. This means that if a band really wants to promote a political message, there's less standing in their way than ever before. But will listeners flock to this kind of music? That's a good question.

Most of you are bigger music fans than I am. Surely, some of you must be aware of modern politically focused bands that I am totally ignorant about. Feel free to recommend a band, or share your own observations of this seeming decline in politically charged songs. Do you notice their absence. Do you mind, or are you liking what you're hearing?

[Matt]

I think part of the issue is the highly charged political atmosphere over the last decade and a half. For a mainstream artist to express a political opinion they really do risk career suicide. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks when they criticized the former president. They were basicly ostricized and many country music stations quit playing them. Granted, the big mistake was not knowing thier audience, that being a redneck with a 9th grade education...but I digress. Similiarly, Hank Williams Jr got tossed from MNF for going a little too far with his comments.

I have heard some artists flat out refuse to discuss politics one way or the other. If they have an opinion, they are determined for it not to be public for fear of alienating at least some of their fans. And it's really probably a smart move on their part.

Another point I would make is that the greatest periods of political music usually begin AFTER a movement has started. Music tends to follow, not lead. Music tends to be not so much a driving force but more a reflection of the time it is created in. If a movement is successful in creating an awareness, the music will follow eventually.

[John]

Yes, the example of the Dixie Chicks was brought up in the article, and that's a good point: Staking a political position exposes a band to risk. Of course it's a risk that has potential rewards (opening doors to a new fan base that admires your message), but many bands may not want to take that kind of risk, especially when they're just starting out and trying to establish themselves. And once you have established yourself, it's another risk to tinker with the formula that made you popular in the first place. So it's something of a vicious cycle.

That's an interesting thought that music follows a movement. We may get a chance to test that theory as we watch the development of the Occupy Wall Street movement. Did we see music develop out of the Tea Party movement? I can't recall that we did, but again, I'm pretty clueless when it comes to music. What other political or social movements of the past have inspired bands?

[Matt]

As for music coming out of the Tea Party Movement, I think we might need to wait. And the reason I say that is this. I am not so sure that the Tea Party movement and the Occupy Wall Street Movement are all that different. I think both groups are basicly pissed off about the same things, they are just taking a while to realize it. In some areas, I know in Memphis for instance, the groups have reached out to each other and had meetings. It's a concept that I certainly agree with, because I do believe if you toss aside the policy differences for a few minutes and begin to look at the root causes of the anger, there is a broad swath of common ground. As a side note, this has become a major fear of certain groups who are aggressively trying to keep the two groups away from each other. But I risk becoming too political...

As to other periods of music, obviously the cultural and political climate of the late 60's/early 70's comes to mind, but I think you can find some reflection of the cultural and political climates in a lot of music. A lot of gospel music descended directly from songs sung in the fields by slaves of the 19th century. "Swing Low Sweet Chariot" was a song sung by the slaves who dreamed of escaping to the north. Blues music, which mostly came out of the sharecropper fields of the Mississippi delta region, was very much a reflection of the plight of sharecroppers in the latter part of the 19th century after emancipation. The black churches played a huge role in the civil rights movement of the 1960's. And they relied on gospel music for a lot of their inspiration, music that had descended to them from the days of slavery.

As for a current (or somewhat current band) that is somewhat political, System of a Down is the only one that really comes to mind as very political.

[Coqui]

Has there really been anything since as worth protesting as Vietnam, which was the watershed of popular artistic protest in the U.S.?

Before anyone gets all bent out of shape, even if you assume that the purpose/pretense/pretext for Iraq II was worse than for Vietnam (not an assumption that many, if any would grant, mind you), the realities of war and of U.S. Armed Forces made the Iraq War (II) resonate much less than the Vietnam War. The main difference is that in Vietnam you had a mostly conscripted Armed Forces composed of those too poor to go to college and those with no influence or other means to evade the draft, resulting in a fighting force composed heavily of the urban and rural poor. In Iraq, you have a completely volunteer fighting force. That's a HUGE difference. There are also differences in the number of troops needed in each War, and in the number of casualties. Let me be clear, I am not minimizing the casualties of those who died in Iraq - it's just that pretty much everyone in the 60s/70s knew someone who was in Vietnam and most probably knew someone who became a casualty. That's much less true about Iraq II. And when you're talking about why society's artists feel it necessary to protest one war but not the other, a difference in the freedom of choice of those fighting coupled with a difference in the sheer numbers matters.

As far as Tea Party / Occupy ________ goes, on the one hand you have an anti-government/taxes protest and on the other you have an anti-capitalism/big business protest. The first is not typical the type of movement that provides much in the way of great protest art. If someone knows of some popular song calling for a flat tax or abolishing the Federal Reserve, I will stand corrected. And as for the latter, taking to the streets for populism and the rights of the oppressed worker largely thanks to the use of $99/month data plans and $300 iPhones isn't exactly the stuff of prior revolutions. I'm not saying that the Occupy ______ folks don't have serious grievances, but let's also not pretend that today's proletariat is oppressed to the same extent as the serfs and urban factory workers of theRussian Revolution.

Finally, the Dixie Chicks really aren't all that relevant of a comparison - they didn't write any anti-anything songs (well, maybe anti-domestic violence, but I'll cover that elsewhere), but rather got in hot water with their fans for making rather clunky political statements from the stage. Those are two different things IMHO.

[John]

If someone knows of some popular song calling for a flat tax or abolishing the Federal Reserve, I will stand corrected.

Does Goo Goo Dolls' "Flat Top" count?

[Matt]

The main difference is that in Vietnam you had a mostly conscripted Armed Forces composed of those too poor to go to college and those with no influence or other means to evade the draft, resulting in a fighting force composed heavily of the urban and rural poor. In Iraq, you have a completely volunteer fighting force. That's a HUGE difference. There are also differences in the number of troops needed in each War, and in the number of casualties. Let me be clear, I am not minimizing the casualties of those who died in Iraq - it's just that pretty much everyone in the 60s/70s knew someone who was in Vietnam and most probably knew someone who became a casualty. That's much less true about Iraq II. And when you're talking about why society's artists feel it necessary to protest one war but not the other, a difference in the freedom of choice of those fighting coupled with a difference in the sheer numbers matters.

The point about how different the two wars are is very real. The Iraq War has been an out of sight, out of mind experience for many. Everyone will say support the troops but hardly anyone knows one. The American people as a whole did not have much skin in this war. Todays armed forces are more than ever poor rural whites, hispanics, and blacks. At certain points in the war the Armed Forces began increasingly advertising the fact that serving in the armed forces was a quick way to a green card, and even lessened the requirements. I generally see our "volunteer" force as primarily consisting of those with no real economic opportunity elsewhere. We don't see the numbers of kids coming from traditional middle class backgrounds serving as we did even as recently as Vietnam.

When you couple that with the fact that taxes were cut during a time of war, something that had never been done before, the American people were left with the impression that the war was free. Combine that with the fact that middle class kids weren't serving, and the American people, by and large, had no skin in this war. In every previous time of war, there was a call for at least some sacrifice by most, if not all, the nation. For all the flag waving some might want to do, the simple fact that 99% of us sacrificed exactly zero is not something I believe we can be proud about as a nation.