"We all live in fairly dangerous times in terms of freedom of speech and freedom of expression." Bullshit, Elvis. What danger is this? Has Sean Penn even been given a traffic ticket for trafficking in stupid ass useful idiocy?
Elvis Costello can count few fans more loyal than me. I identify with him as a person more than any other musician ever, and count him on strictly musical merits certainly in the top ten artists of the rock tradition.…
Article comments
26 - Al Barger
Here's the point Avedon and Mr. Carruthers seem to be missing: THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU AN ARTISTIC VENUE. This is of course a corollary of the common truism that THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU A LIVING.
Warner Brothers is NOT stifling your free speech nor censoring you in any way by NOT signing you to a record contract. They do NOT OWE you a contract. If they do not think you are a viable act that they can turn a profit on, then to the curb with ya. That some artists have bad contracts with the labels does not constitute a "danger" to our free speech.
None of this justifies Elvis speaking as if he were being stifled. The "danger" is pretty much all in his fevered creative imagination.
By the way, if you can make them a buck, the labels don't give a rat's ass what you say. They eagerly promoted the Clash, which is about as far out into leftist land as you can get. Rage Against the Machine didn't seem to have trouble getting major corporate promotion. Gangster rap and Tracy Chapman "Talking 'Bout a Revolution" and Public Enemy- all published and eagerly promoted by major labels.
27 - Sean H.
One last time. No musician has to sign with a major record label to conceive / produce / distribute their music. They enter into a business arrangement with someone or something (major, indie, bedroom, whatever) that they assume will do a better job with the latter two functions than they could do themselves. If they choose to align themselves with a corporation and not retain counsel to protect their rights / intellectual property, IT'S THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT.
28 - Jim Carruthers
What I find wanting is what EC actually said, which is that free speech is under assualt, and that only by defending it can it be maintained.
Saying he should just shut up only reinforces the point. Secondly, anybody who thinks a free and open market exists in the USA is a fool, plain and simple, or an evil troll.
Simply put, a handfull of media comapanies controll the media in the States. Secondly, the political process is a function of a corporate oligarchy. It's been that way for 20 years, and only gets worse.
The fact right wing fans are pissed off by what Elvis says only goes to prove his point that the US is slipping into fascism.
29 - Sean
A few months back, writers and journalists in Cuba were imprisoned for counter-revolutionary activity. They asked for a say in running their country, asked for a meaningful vote, aksed to be able to criticize Castro and the communist leadership. Some of them were sent up the river for 28 years.
In the United States, Bill Maher lost his TV show, but quickly got another, and the Dixie Chicks pissed off a significant portion of their fan base by criticising the president during a time of war, but still managed to sell out a nationwide tour. President Bush did not fire Bill Maher, nor did President Bush burn Dixie Chick discs on the South Lawn of the White House.
Pop Quiz: Which country is a repressive totalitarian government?
30 - Sean
I never said Elvis should shut up. I am critical of his comments, but he can say whatever the hell he pleases. However, when he talks such stupid nonsense, I, and it appears a few others, will call him out on it. Criticism does not equal censorship.
Isn't Elvis a "wage slave" for one of those handful of companies which control the media in this country? Hasn't Elvis switched record companies a few times? Ok, the first time around, he was young, and excited and maybe he gave away the rights to his music. But the second and third times he signed contracts, he was a cagey veteran who should have known better. At least he should have had his own lawyer in the room to keep his copyrights. Fool him once, shame on the record comapnies; Fool him twice and/or thrice, shame on Elvis Costello.
As I believe that the US has free and open markets, at least in relation to anyplace I am aware of, I am trying to decide whether I am a fool or an evil troll. Being a fool would be nice in an ignorance is bliss sort of way, but being an evil troll would be cool because I could hide under a bridge and demand tribute before I let anyone pass over it. Jim, I am going with evil troll on this one.
31 - mike
A few months back, many British musicians and writers criticized their government's plans to go to war in Iraq. They received a respectful hearing in the media, and many were interviewed on the BBC and other networks, which gave full airing to both sides of the issue.
In the United States, celebrities who criticized the war endured an unending campaign of defamation. One group, the Dixie Chicks, was subject to a phoney "boycott" which turns out to have been initiated by the Republican National Committee. (http://www.counterpunch.org/dixie05172003.html)
Although average Americans were very willing to listen to such antiwar views, they didn't have the opportunity to do so because CNN, Fox and the other networks allowed only prowar and centrist voices to be heard. America's democratic institutions were bypassed by the media oligarchy and its cheering section, the right wing hate talkers (virtually all of whom work for the oligarchy).
Pop Quiz: Of Britain and the U.S., which showed during the war that it has become little more than a banana republic?
32 - son volt
I'm guessing a lot of people here would have similarly defended the blacklists of the 1950s, since the compilation and dissemination of those lists involved only private, voluntary exchanges, not coercion by the government.
33 - Steve Rhodes
Again, Elvis didn't say he was being stifled. He didn't even complain about his record contracts. He just said freedom of speech is something we should defend. That we should fight to defend our freedom is something that was said in thoursands of ceremonies today.
Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page said:
34 - Sean H.
Mark me down as troll as well. I honestly thought only people well to the right of me politically could be so paranoid. If my calling out EC on overblown hyperbole is an example of the US sliding into fascism, my comments when I first heard the Brodsky Quartet project would have placed us on the path to theocracy.
35 - Al Barger
Sean, for somebody who is agreeing with me on my point of criticism in this post, you're managing to get on my last nerve with now repeated slanders against Elvis' later work. The Brodsky Quartet album is The Juliet Letters, and it is an exceptionally good piece of work. I can see that I will have to write some proper analysis and praise for this classic. Sorry if it doesn't have guitars and drums crashing away. Nonetheless, it kicks ass.
Monkey with me anymore on this, and this blog will turn ALL ELVIS, ALL THE TIME. You think I won't?
36 - Sean H.
Al,
I suspect we would disagree about most of EC's later period works but that's OK. Isn't that the point of the original blog -that no one's right to free speech is really being impinged, especially the ones with the microphones and guest spots hosting David Letterman.
I'm trying to convey to Mr. Carruthers that I felt free to criticize EC long before we slipped into a "post democratic corporate oligarchy", let alone Mr. Ashcroft's stormtroopers asked me to.
For the record, I don't need crashing drums and guitars to enjoy EC's music. My all time-favorite EC performance was a solo show he did with T-Bone Burnett as support at Avery Fisher Hall in Lincoln Center back in 1984. I saw him later that year in concert with the Attractions humping their pretty lame "Goodbye Cruel World" album. There was no comparison.
37 - Al Barger
I have to somewhat give you the point if you argue against Goodbye Cruel World. That was one of his couple of lesser albums, granted. Yet even that had "Inch by Inch" among other groovy items.
It was not perhaps fully up to the extraordinarily high standards of Elvis Costello, but if, say, Wilco came up with this, it would be hailed as a masterpiece. It certainly has considerably better songs than the Foxtrot Tango thing.
38 - Sean H.
I haven't heard enough of The Juliet Letters to make a full comparison to Wilco's YHF. I like Wilco very much and I think that YHF is a good but ridiculously over-rated record.
I would like to go on the record that the whole melodrama, er make that DVD docudrama, concerning the creation of YHF was largely a brilliant ploy by the Warner Brothers accounting department to shift assets among the various ledgers.
39 - Al Barger
Let me be clear regarding Elvis vs Wilco: The relatively mediocre Goodbye Cruel World album definitely rates higher than Wilco on the basis of songs. The Juliet Letters album, on the other hand, is a fairly highly rated album even within the Elvis catalog. It's exponentially better than the Wilco. I wouldn't trade you even "This Offer Is Unrepeatable" for the entire Wilco catalog
40 - Sean H.
I'm honestly not enough of a Wilco fan to defend them. Also, Tweedy's shtick tends to be far more annoying than EC's. On the other hand, Wilco gave me a free EP last week and that counts for something.
I have to ask: would you put The Juliet Letters in EC's top 5? Top 10?.
41 - Sean
I have to weigh in with Sean H. (not a blood relation)on the Juliet Letters. It is pretty damn near unlisteneable in my opinion, and please don't get me started on the whole Bachrach fiasco. I also don't need crashing drums and guitars to enjoy Elvis. He can sit and pluck away at the piano and I will enjoy it, as long as the songs are top notch.
I was also at that Avery Fisher Hall show, and it was magnificent. Touring later with the Attractions for GCW, it seemed that Elvis just didn't give a crap anymore, although I saw him on Broadway after B&C came out, both with the Attractions and the Confederates, and he seemed to have his schwerve back. I have seen him a few times in the past 15 years, but could not give you the details of any of the concerts simply because none of them stand out in my memory, and I have not used controlled substances at a concert for years.
I could try to draw some parallels between his mushy headed thinking and what I see as his artistic decline, but I am too tired. I had a tough day as an evil troll.
42 - Al Barger
Son Volt [comment #32] should stop with his McCarthyite tactics. Being called a McCarthyite has become one of the worst accusations you can have thrown at you in public debate. If you are a McCarthyite, then you are considered to be a fascist demagogue. You suppress free speech. You're a definitively bad apple.
Thus, being accused of McCarthyism means that you are a no-goodnik outside of the moral approval of any decent citizen. You need not, indeed SHOULD not give consideration to any arguments by a McCarthyite. You might as well call someone a Nazi. It wouldn't be considered that much worse. Calling someone a "McCarthyite" is to demonize them and de-legitimize them as a person, to (try to) bludgeon them into submission with name calling.
Saying that Elvis was talking some foolishness and he shouldn't talk stupid does not constitute McCarthyism- not in terms of what the term now means in common parlance, nor even in the more limited terms of the actual practice.
Common citizens criticizing Elvis or the dreaded Dixie Chicks is categorically different than any kind of action undertaken by the government. Fans boycotting your product (the worst case scenario here) is not at all the same thing as the fear of being drug in front of Congress and implicitly or explicitly threatened with criminal prosecution.
43 - Sean H.
Hey Son Volt, you think there's anything to my Wilco theory?
44 - Sean
Hey Son Volt, when boycotts were organized against Dr. Laura and her show was forced off the air, did that constitute McCarthyism? Are boycotts, cosumer actions, and criticism of the speech of others always McCarthyism, or only when you have sympathy for the artists and/or companies being boycotted?
For the record, I think Dr. Laura is a twit and I have heard maybe a full hour of her radio show, and never saw the tv show, but my question still stands.
45 - mike
I'm not big on boycotts, but the difference is that the Dr. Laura boycott was initiated by groups not affiliated with the government or the media oligarchy. As the link I cited above notes, the Dixie Chicks boycott was started and organized by the Republican National Committee and abetted by the Clear Channels, who have business before the Bush Administration and are eager to please it.
This type of intimidation is not an example of McCarthyism; it's an example of statist capitalism, in which the oligarchic corporations and the government do each other's bidding. State Capitalism is what existed in Brazil in the 1960s, and it's what exists in the United States today. A shame, really. The U.S. used to be a nice country.
46 - Carlos Morgado
Elvis Costello is a more advanced mind and is right.
Copyright laws are not adequate to this world global communication.
Multinationals are gaining more millions at coast of artists and buyers.