Can the morals
Published August 06, 2004
http://www.usatoday.com/life/music/news/2004-08-04-act-tour_x.htm
I'm reading USA Today at work because you know between calls there's nothing like some good old fashioned pop news to get your mind going. And I run across that article up there. Case short, it's about how there's so few protest music going on these days and how hard it is for artists to get radical on political on the radio. Now naturally my first reaction was "Oh that's so bad artists not being able to put out their more philosophical works to a wider ranging audience". Ok no not really my first thought reading through the article ran more along the lines of "Oh goody goody gumdrops no more political songs woo hoo".
So I guess I should explain myself.
It is my opinion, and a most sacred and artistic one it is, that overtly political art kills art. It's wrong, it's a sin, they shouldn't do that, erroneous in execution and style, pitiful, wretched, ludicrous, and most of all it's absolutely boring. That's the first commandment of art don't you know, Thou Shalt Not Be Boring. My problems with political art started like this. Years ago I would go to poetry slams where I expected to hear exciting and new poetry being performed in a rock star fashion. And you know there was some good stuff I admit. But the one thing that brought it all down is after a while everyone started to sound the same. See go figure nearly everyone was a liberal of some sort. Worker liberal, women's right liberal, economic liberal, social liberal and on and on. Really shouldn't matter right? Besides I run left wing on most issues so really it shouldn't matter at all. Except that every poem was in fact a sermon. A sermon on fat people prejudice. A sermon on economic hardship. A sermon on how the government is controlling the lives of our native peoples and we should all rise together arm and arm and take down the oppressive society that our government has forced upon us. And naturally everyone clapped. We didn't snap we clapped. We may have been high-minded intellectuals but lord no we were not cheesy.
Thing is I noticed that the poems that got the most approval were the poems that best extemporized liberal philosophy. It was if, and bear with me guys I can be slow sometimes, it was almost as if that the poetry itself did not matter but rather the political point behind each poem. Can you imagine that, personal philosophical and moral beliefs take precedence over actual art? I mean what would happen if a conservative or a libertarian read a poem in front of the crowd extolling the virtues of fundamentalist Christianity or laissez faire economics? Would all of us clap and hoot and make outlandish gestures of approval or would we sit stone-faced or maybe even you know boo. And what if these imaginary philosophical opposite poets were actually quite good and could really string a phrase together and sing out rhythm purely on meter alone? Would we still boo them?
- Can the morals
- Published: August 06, 2004
- Type:
- Section: Music
- Writer: Celestial Dung
- Celestial Dung's BC Writer page
- Celestial Dung's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments
Dung, I believe Duke Ellington's statement,
"There are only two kinds of music: good and bad"
--applies to art as well.
There have been many great works of art that were either implicitly or explicitly 'political', 'moral', or social criticisms. And I can think of a few recent songs that meet the criteria as well.
(Picasso, Goya, Neil Young, and Steve Earle come to mind right off the bat, among many others too numerous to list...)
BTW: It could also be argued that every great work of narrative art has a "moral", whether obvious or hidden -- and that moral might even be a major component of what makes it 'great'.
I think, to some degreee, that most, if not all, revelevant art expresses some kind of opinion. It is the medium of communication from the artist to the world. I don't believe that you can completely separate the artist's soul from his or her work. To this degree, all art is political.
I agree with Shark about the good and bad of art. Some works just suck. Other shine. A good piece of political art should at least make the other side take a look at it, if not agree with it.
It's possible to have a moral neutral work of art if questions are asked instead of solutions given. A good example is "Blowing in the Wind" which to this day confuses the hell out of people. No solution is given rather questions are asked.
The problem I have with sermon art is that the artists feel that having a point thrust into my head is more important then making exceptional art.
Admitedly morals slick out. Wilde's work was exceptionally moral and yet he proclaimed himself a comple art for art's celibrate. Tolkien hated symbolism and perferred pure story over moral tale and yet thinks slipped out of his Christian upbrining.
But there is a difference i believe in morality being subconscience in art and being in the forefront. The former can offer debate while the latter only offers agreement.
"I've never had a better job than I do now."
Of course it is; and it's also possible to have great art that's political and/or moral.
Some is implicit (your 'asking question' example), and some is explicit (Steve Earle's "America Version 6.0").
Amyway, yer splittin' imaginary hairs.
Whoops! Had a pesky cut that was left over from another 'paste'. Sorry!
Try again, shark.
============
"It's possible to have a moral neutral work of art if questions are asked instead of solutions given."
Of course it is; and it's also possible to have great art that's political and/or moral.
Some is implicit (your 'asking question' example), and some is explicit (Steve Earle's "America Version 6.0").
Amyway, yer splittin' imaginary hairs.
Then I suppose we will have to demonize most of the protest songs written in the latter half of the 60's. Four dead on O-hi-oh well.
A lot depends on the approach. A lot of overtly political songs are just garbage that nobody would take seriously if they didn't have the "correct" political message. The entire catalogue of Rage Against the Machine comes to mind.
A lot of the problem is that the lack of creative imagination in TUNES also comes out in the lyrics. A lot of this crap is just boilerplate, or dumb pinko talking points.
On the other hand, writing a song about a specific situation and characters can be very effective. Taking a trip in the way-back machine, dig on "The Lonesome Death of Hattie Carroll." Of course, it helps that this has a MELODY.
Telling a story with political subtexts of a more subtle nature tends to be more effective. Steve Earle telling the family story on "Copperhead Road" has all kinds of interesting implications, but not just a dumb bludgeoning left-wing harangue.
It's not putting politics into art that's bad, but NOT putting imagination into it. Substituting cheap applause lines in the lyrics for a TUNE or anything thoughtful to actually challenge an audience in the lyrics just doesn't get it.
Here's an example of a really GOOD political song, partly because it's only about politics secondarily to the tune and the (real) characters. What do any of y'all think of this one?
Discussions about the nature of art and its relationship to reality have be going on since forever, and won't be finished anytime soon. In the modern world, even apolitical art is considered to have a political stance. I think the best a writer or artist can hope for is that his or her art will connect with an audience and help them with their own understanding of the way the world is, or maybe at least the way it should be.
BTW, best political song - Little Feat's A Apolitcal Blues:
"Well my telephone was ringing
And they told me it was Chairman Mao
Well my telephone was ringing
And they told me it was Chairman Mao
You can tell him anything
'Cause I just don't wanna talk to him now " - Lowell George






Postscript
I apologize in advance for making a mess out of the board with repeated postings and mixing my Excerpts with my attachments. When I make a mess I make a mess.