The Wall Street Journal printed a story this morning by Phil Kuntz in which the writer wrestled with his love for Bruce Springsteen and the artist's outspoken, partisan views regarding the upcoming election.
For those who live in their mother's basement and have just finished reorganizing their 100,000-strong vinyl collection -- this time in chronological order -- there's an election on, and Bruce is taking part in a series of concerts dubbed Vote For Change, sponsored by MoveOn.org.
The message being delivered by these concerts is decidedly anti-Bush, but for the purposes of this piece, I don't care who you support in the upcoming election. The only thing I care about is that everyone gets out there and votes on November 2nd, that the votes are tallied properly, and that the will of the people is heard. I will try to keep my following thoughts as impartial and non-partisan as possible.
What has gotten me a bit fired up of late is that if you've been reading any of the stories in the press about the above-mentioned series of concerts, there are several members of the U.S. electorate who have been interviewed and quoted by the media as saying that musicians should keep their political views to themselves, that musicians are not qualified to pass judgment on our current geo-political problems or the workings of our government, and that their opinions are valueless. The quote in the Journal from Mr. Kuntz's distraught friend was, "Can't they just play music without alienating their fan base?"
Let's get two things straight: The U.S. Constitution grants the right of free speech, and, more importantly, musicians have been speaking their minds both in their music and in public -- in some cases against the establishment -- for more than 40 years.
Of course, as George Carlin says, "If you don't like what you're hearing, Reverend, there are two knobs on the radio. One changes the station. And the other turns it off." This is to say that if you don't like what the artist is saying, it's absolutely your prerogative to turn the artist off -- even to the extent of tossing their CDs out of your collection, writing them off forever. That's your choice. But why are the artist's opinions irrelevant?
While a great deal of popular music of the 20th, and now 21st centuries, often deals with love and relationships, it has also always served as an excellent source of commentary and protest.
Why does a musician have less of a right to speak his/her mind than a Sunday-morning TV pundit, a journalist, a priest, or a politician? Are those public figures smarter? Let's be honest; we've seen many entertainers over the past few decades enter the political fray, climbing to the highest levels. These people state their political views. Are we to believe that they're the only enlightened ones from the artistic community?
And to specifically address Springsteen, this man did not just arrive at his stated opinions overnight, he's been a liberal his entire career, and has written many songs that called the actions of our leaders into question.
From Bob Dylan to John Lennon, Pete Townshend to Curtis Mayfield, Bruce Springsteen to Stevie Wonder, dozens and dozens of legendary artists and bands have often written about social and political issues. They may not write about things the same way an op-ed journalist would, but they write about it in their way, which in my opinion (you see, I'm allowed to have one too) is often far more emotionally connective and long lasting than those appearing on FOX News or in Time magazine. It's not only the musician's right as a free thinker to state his view; it's his obligation as a documentarian of modern society.
The day that musicians stop expressing their beliefs in their art and public discourse will be the day music dies. Once again, I don't care if you like what Bruce is saying or prefer to kick up your heels to Toby Keith. The point is that they both have a right to sing and talk about whatever they want. One is only more right than the other if you believe in what they're saying. You, the fan, make your choice as to which one appeals to you. But let's not say they should keep their opinions to themselves; it fosters mediocrity and serves to undermine something our founding fathers thought important enough to place in the very first Amendment to the U.S. Constitution: free speech.
Subscribe to Feed
