Politicalization of Music/Television

[Vincent Chase]

Before I start I injured my left index finger today wrestling an alligator (...I was chopping green peppers), so my typing may be typo extensive. I'll try to proofread. In the way I usually format my posts you don't really have to read what I say, so much as read the questions at the bottom, and add stuff if you want.

This is something that has only really picked up again (remember the 60's?) in this Bush Administration. Artists (because this mainly takes place in music and to a lesser extent in television) have really picked up their instruments and used them to try to sway people's opinions. Naturally this has been both good and bad.

And I also don't count bands that have always been political, like Rage Against the Machine and Jedi Mind Tricks, but more the people that have cashed in on this trend and people who have made the most noise on it. The best example of someone benefiting from this is probably Green Day, with American Idiot. Now they're more popular than ever, my mom even has the album, and she used to break stones when I would crank Insomniac ten years ago. It's just so weird, now, not all of the songs are politically themed, and the album is their second best (every one who knows them always says second for some reason), but I don't really know about it, despite how much I like the songs, it kind of seems like a pretty huge attempt to cash in on the Bush bash, call me crazy.

Like I mentioned before some bands start out with very political lyrics, which is cool, and some bands do them later. I really don't know if that's conformity or just growing up, but I for sure think that music is getting too political these days, but since it moves in cycles, I know it'll all clear up soon. One thing that really bothers me about all of these Bush-hating musicians is on my mind, though. As famous entertainers your in the top .01% earnings wise, about, right? Why are they so upset that he's giving them tax cuts? It's why people like Bruce Springsteen should really just let it slide and play music. Yeah, it sucks...for the working class, not people who haven't worked a day in their lives. I come from a completely different political world (Canada) and I couldn't imagine living with some of the things that go on in American Politics, but it's not for me to judge. However, I don't think that the people who are most benefiting from his leadership should speak out so much.

1- Should Music or should music not be political? Is it too political right now? Does musicians shamelessly using their status to promote a leader/candidate make you want to kill someone or is it cool?

TV, pretty much exactly the same as music, is either political to begin with or evolves to be political, but this happens alot less than with music. I definently think that Television is alot better at doing this, because its been doing it for years now, and music only had a few people in the 60's and today.

Three new networks catering to gays and lesbians announced, April 13/05

I'm alright with that. I'm not religious, so I believe in equal rights for everyone regardless of what they do (Same sex marriages legal in Ontario, also in the state of Massachucetts). But really, I know probably no less than 10 gay people and they really aren't that different. i don't know if the constant 'segregation' is because of a desire by them to be different, or just people not wanting to change their views on it.

But...I don't really know if I'm sure about This ('My Fabuolous gay Wedding', not the moron who thinks he can give out judgment like the Lord). As I said it should be allowed, but after the huge flare up about it with the Church last year and the fact that there are alot of Christians in Canada and the USA, and I really think it could have been named something else other than 'Wedding' (which is a religious word, not just Catholic). I try to tell myself that it's just people unwilling to change, but the more I think about it, I think the entire argument (not just about the show, also the issue) is all about the word, which is really just stupid. It's just a word, but again it is a word with alot of significance attached to it. Man, I'd really hate to be a politician.

And I would guess that some of the creators would know that, at least one of them would know that, and maybe use something different, something not sacred to yourselves and the Christians. It's your right to, of course, but I really think it's just a bad idea, because it'll really piss off the few hundred million Christians and Catholics in North America, including the President.

Also, you have the shows that are meant to be political (not including the news). They are equally entertaining, shows like The Daily Show, perhaps the only newscast I've seen lately that doesn't use the scare tactic, and the new American Dad, which is political just by them name and looks sweet.

So in summation, TV can do whatever the hell it wants, but it should still be careful what it does sometimes.

2- Can anything be done to stop the segregation of people of different races and preferences?

3- If 'My Fabulous gay Wedding' was 'My Fabulous Gay ([b]Any word other than Wedding)', will people be more/less upset about it?

4- Is this whole thing a battle over morality or just over the use of the word 'Wedding'?

5- Would we even be asking these questions if the President was more secular?[/b]

[John Layfield]

1- Should Music or should music not be political? Is it too political right now? Does musicians shamelessly using their status to promote a leader/candidate make you want to kill someone or is it cool?

As long as it's the performers beliefs, I see no reason why they can't as much as I dislike it. And yes, I get deeply annoyed when they use their status to try and persuade apathetic people to vote based on their own preference rather than what the electorate wants.

2- Can anything be done to stop the segregation of people of different races and preferences?

We've done a great job with it here. I wouldn't know too much about situation elsewhere so I can't really answer it.

3- If 'My Fabulous gay Wedding' was 'My Fabulous Gay (Any word other than Wedding)', will people be more/less upset about it?

The same. After all, they're complaining that homosexuality is immoral. I do read up on bills and the like passed and that they try to get passed in the States. These people are trying to literally wipe homosexuality from the world.

4- Is this whole thing a battle over morality or just over the use of the word 'Wedding'?

It's a battle of rightful ethics against ignorance.

5- Would we even be asking these questions if the President was more secular?

If the President wasn't a right-wing fundie? Not as often, but judging by the sheer volume of Americans who agree with him, it wouldn't vanish.
_________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, we shall all come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.

[Earthquake923]

You know it's funny, church and state are supposed to be seperat in the US, but it isn't. The government should not care if people of the same sex are getting married, just that people are marrying. In all honesty, why should the governmant care? It would actually be better for them. I know people who are a couple, and what they get back seperatly on their tax returns would make you green. They have 2 kids, and each claims 1, right off the bat that $12,000.00 in a refund. I know this because my sister got back $6,000 for my niece. And a friend of mine at work that is single with 2 kids got back around $8,000. I know you say differnce in wage, and earnings, etc.. But a child earns you 6 grand for your income tax. This gay couple file seperatly(of course since marriage isn't allowed) and get back more.
_________________
If anybody asks about the avatar, I did it for Jess.

[Sophita]

1- Should Music or should music not be political? Is it too political right now? Does musicians shamelessly using their status to promote a leader/candidate make you want to kill someone or is it cool?

Lots of questions there, hombre.

Let's go one by one here.

Should music or should music not be political?

Personal question, depends on the performer. There are those who believe that music is meant to give a snapshot of life; those who believe it should have a message; those who just want to write a cool jingle; and those who write about everything. IMO, 'tis up to the musician to decide whether or not they write a political song, and thus, the question should not be so much "should?" but "would your [music] be."

That said, if they do write a political song, they should be prepared to deal with the fallout. If you write a song praising Bush, then don't be surprised if people who don't like Bush call you on it. All this "I didn't know it would be controversial." pr is just stupid. You write it, that's great, but you have to be prepared for the consequences.

Is it too political right now?

I wouldn't say so considering that I can't think of more than 2-3 really, really mainstream groups have been famous for their politics within the last 2 decades.

Does musicians shamelessly using their status to promote a leader/candidate make you want to kill someone or is it cool?

Neither. People are allowed to say what they think.

2- Can anything be done to stop the segregation of people of different races and preferences?

The internet, for one. *points*

Otherwise? I think it's going down. It takes time, but social attitudes do change. 40 years ago, 50 years ago, it was unbelievable to believe that a Catholic was in the white house because the Protestant majority thought it would lead to the pope having an eye in the White House. When Kerry ran, it was a non-issue for the most part. 50 Years ago, t was very taboo for a white man and a black man to hang around. Now it happens all the time. 100 years ago, if you were of (x) ethnic group, then you could never have friends in (y) ethnic group without people getting upset about it. 200 years ago, religion was a huge issue, and if you were a member of (x) group, you would never live in a town that was predominantly (y). Now it is not uncommon to live in a place where there are as many churches are there are bars. Humanity adapts, taboos are lowered, change.

3- If 'My Fabulous gay Wedding' was 'My Fabulous Gay (Any word other than Wedding)', will people be more/less upset about it?

I've never even heard of it so I doubt there's too much of a moral outrage about it, or it would have been off the news. So keep in mind I am going at this with a completely blank mind:

I think less so. If it were just "My Fabulous Wedding" that happened to have both straight and gay couples, I doubt anyone would bat an eye. But, to premiere a show called "My Fabulous Gay Wedding" right at a time when Gay Rights - specifically the Right To Marry - is coming up ALL THE TIME as a major hot button issue, well, that title is really kind of thumbing it to them, isn't it? If it's getting bad press...I think that is why.

Of course there are those who are dedicated to wiping homosexuality off the map, but considering it's been a part of civilization since ancient Greece, I doubt they will have much luck.

4- Is this whole thing a battle over morality or just over the use of the word 'Wedding'?

The word "Wedding" which, in the U.S., has religious/moral significance since most people consider the ceremony in church the wedding itself, rather than going to the courtroom to get married. (I think, but am not sure, that in Europe it is somewhat considered the other way around? Any European Suikox's out there who can set me straight on that?) If the word had a more secular connotation, than I doubt we would be discussing it.

5- Would we even be asking these questions if the President was more secular?

Yes, but probably less so.

[Urn]

1- Should Music be political or should music not be political? Is it too political right now? Does musicians shamelessly using their status to promote a leader/candidate make you want to kill someone or is it cool?

Should music be political or should music not be political? Hmm, I believe that music is a form of art. It's someone's personal form of expression. We cannot deny anyone's form of expression, so if they choose for their music to spread a political message, then more power to them.

Is music too political right now? What in this world does not deal with politics? Everything we are involved in oozes political sentiments and music is no different. I don't think it is as political as it was during the 1970s, but every group expresses their own individual belief in the music they portray to the public. As long as music speaks to the public, then there will be a political message involved. Music is the best medium for political statements. So, I can't say that it is too political right now because what is really too political. I believe it is political enough.

Does musicians shamelessly using their status to promote a leader/candidate make you want to kill someone or is it cool? Well, it doesn't bother me in the slightest. People have the right to express their individual beliefs and you have the right to ignore them. Musicians using their status only works on the uninformed who shamelessly discard their minds and hand their agendas over to someone else like sheep. People who can be molded by musicians are to blame and not the musicians themselves.

2- Can anything be done to stop the segregation of people of different races and preferences?

Hmm, this is a rather loaded question. America has done the best they could through laws, now all that is left is for people to let go of the stigma that race has come to hold on people's minds throughout the country. We have to realize that things can't be made 'right'. As human beings will have the opportunity to make the most of ourselves independent of race or preference.

I'm afraid that people will continue to hold themselves back due to events of the past and not look on towards the future. There will always be issues of segregation as long as we hold onto the idea of racial discrimination. We need to not look at people as a color or race, but as a human being just as each and everyone of us are. Now, I'm not saying to deny your race or ethnicity, but to treat people as a person and not the image of their race. This would help alleviate the common stereotypes that lead to segregation and individual preference.

If we come to acknowledge each person as an individual and a person of equal merit as yourself, then segregation will become pointless. I believe America is making strides in this direction, but there's still an over representation of minorities in criminal activity and unemployment due to the majority race's strangle hold on the more professional jobs in big business. But, we are moving towards a world where we see a person and not a color and that gives me hope that segregation and preference will eventually be a thing of the distant past.

3- If 'My Fabulous gay Wedding' was 'My Fabulous Gay (Any word other than Wedding)', will people be more/less upset about it?

Personally, I've never heard of this show so I don't understand the outrage. But, I do recall mentionings of this, along witht the runaway bride. Of course, the major disturbance is coming from the Catholic community which is to be expected. I don't think the wording makes a difference as long as the word 'gay' is in it which is quite sad for a nation that preaches tolerance. People will be upset either way. People should just get over it. People are people and everyone has the right to be united in holy matrimony with each other if they truly love each other. I can't understand how the Catholic church would argue against it. Love is non-discriminating.

I find the stance the church has on gay marriage to be quite hypocritical. Funny because the Roman Church originates in Rome which was established by the Roman Empire that encouraged their soldiers to have male lovers to increase their closeness...truly funny to me. And don't bother stating that Romans were polytheistic and around before Christ and the rise of the Catholic Church because I know all of this, but remember that Charlemagne was a Roman, as well. But, alas, people will complain no matter what because we as a people are intolerant to that which is not culturally accepted.

4- Is this whole thing a battle over morality or just over the use of the word 'Wedding'?

I think it's just a battle over the ignorance of people's personal beliefs. Marriage has nothing to do with it. Morality has nothing to do with it either. How can you associate morals to the idea of marriage when half of the marriages end in divorce these days. Marriage has become just a phase for Americans these days. Where's the morality in that? It's not morals motivating these complaints it's their own insecurities.

5- Would we even be asking these questions if the President was more secular?

Yes, whether the President was more secular or not would not change the opinions of the populace as a whole. As some members have mentioned earlier, this is not an issue of religion in reference to gay marriage. It's an issue of First Amendment rights. The government, through bills and bylaws, have allowed for issues of same sex marriages to be determined by the state, never really taken a firm stance through the federal government.

As someone mentioned earlier, there are more issues to consider when discussing same sex marriages. We have the tax issues to consider. Marriage couples get breaks due to income and other sorts of binding articles to consider. Legal contracts are made allowing for married couples to get special considerations in real estate and other property laws. This is due to the notion held by earlier generations that marriage is for bearing children. Gay couples would not come together to procreate so the government has to consider if this is in the best interest for America as a nation. You have to consider adoption laws established through state laws and regulations. There are more issues to consider than whether or not it is accepted by religion.

The government will naturally reflect the interest of the populace because they are responsible for voting the political leaders into office. The issues of the people are the issues of the governing body. The government has to consider the issues of gay rights because the people find the issue pressing. My Queen is quick to point this out by the way. Politics is all about the constituents...well at least during election and re-election year. lol
_________________
~ Humbly walk the path of death

KOOLUK SUPPORTS TINTO MINERS

[Sage]

1. Should it be? The musicians can do whatever they want. To say it should or shouldn't be political is arguing 1st Amendment rights.

2. Kill everyone who wants to segregate people. That's probably the only way, since not everyone is going to accept everyone else.

3. I have no idea. "Wedding" does carry a connotation for many people, so I would guess no. Personally, I'm tired of the whole "I'm gay and I'm gonna make sure you know!" thing going on now on tv. So what? It's each person's own preference and I don't care either way since it doesn't affect me. I do care that everyone's making a big deal out of it and it gets shoved in my face. Why make a show specifically dedicated to this anyway? Why not do a show based solely on another political issue like social security or Iraq? Same thing to me. It's just to exploit the political situation for profit, not because the tv network(s) are proponents for gay rights or care about these people. That's wrong in and of itself in my opinion. The wording is a moot point to me.

4. I guess I kinda answered this already. Some people care about the word while others have moral issues with gays. I see this as exploitation of people and the political climate for a profit (which goes on everywhere, I know) and that I find wrong.