Schmoozing.
And boozing.And never the two shall meet.
-
Or, "Why Conor Oberst and Eddie Vedder Should Never Be Introduced To Barack Obama"
A plumber in small-town America probably doesn’t give a shit about artistic integrity. If there’s a meals to be eaten, it’s likely he doesn’t give a shit how it was prepared. And if his children are safe at the end of another long day, there isn’t a real concern about who’s at the top of the political food chain. Whoever reigns supreme may have had a hand in keeping those children safe but odds are the plumber will have to dig deep to find something in common with his fearless leader. And artistic integrity certainly won’t help matters.
Yet somehow, a few months before the entire western world (Or everyone with a high-speed internet connection and a propensity to download music, regardless of their geographical proximity to Washington) will make proverbial love to either John McCain or Barack Obama, artistic integrity seems to matter. People are not so concerned with right or wrong, or right or left. Those with an affinity for popular culture are becoming concerned about where their favourite artist stands on the election. This isn’t a rarity in the slightest; it’s just overwhelmingly important in 2008. “Hope for Change” isn’t just an idea anymore. That idea has evolved into a polarizing force. Artists like Conor Oberst, the Decemberists and Eddie Vedder aren’t a reason to rush to your local record store on new release Tuesdays; they’ve become a reason to run head-first towards a polling station this coming November.
Now of course, there’s nothing wrong with an artist making you want to get off your ass and do something radical anytime of the year. Yet there might be something hazardous about ol’ Eddie making you want to dash to said polling station sometime around dinner in November.
It’s inevitable that all art lends itself to politics in some form. But the idea of an artist lending itself to a politician in a transparent and obvious form is where the honey gets real sticky. More importantly, when that happens, indie kids everywhere ought not to lend themselves to that politician as well but ditch their headphones and actually listen to (And realize) what’s happening.
Bob Dylan might have been the most overtly influential political singer-songwriter, ever. (I should stress, he MIGHT have been) But it’s also impossible to associate and assimilate Bob with any politician of past or present. Artists make a drastic mistake in campaigning for Barack Obama. (As so many musicians with indie cred have or will soon do) The fundamentals of democracy and politics should not be overlooked, regardless how high a rating your last record scored on Pitchfork. Don’t tour in support of Barack Obama (Or anyone for that matter) and associate yourself and your fans with that vote; real artistic integrity means questioning politicians and making them work for you by earning your vote.
I am nowhere near eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential election. But I was blown away earlier this year in New York City upon hearing Eddie Vedder voice muffled support for Barack Obama. I’m sure many Pearl Jam fans were. (Not for getting political in New York City of all places but for backing a politician as likeable and popular as Obama) Naturally, as an impressionable Pearl Jam fan (And one at the will of months of built-up adrenaline, waiting for the gig) I became engrossed with the creation of Obama’s myth while not totally lending an ear to his politics.
Soon enough, I became aware of a slew of like-minded, left-leaning artists with oceans of indie cred between them who have bought a first-class ticket on the Obama train. Again, this isn’t out of place or uncommon in the slightest. But it’s fair to have an ocean of wonder as to where these artists will stand if Obama fucks up on the job. (Dude’s already admitted to smoking dope, after all)
It’s more than fair for an artist to campaign for a change in the politics which dictate how she or he lives. Or is it? Would it actually be that beneficial for Eddie Vedder if Obama was elected President? Though every band this side of Amsterdam jumping on the “We hate ol’ Georgie boy” bandwagon certainly seems like a bit of a trend, at least it’s polarizing and at least there’s a muse that forces them to sing about something meaningful. It pains me to think about the rise of the collective egos of these leftist artists if Obama is elected. God knows how many terrible noise-rock records could be released in the wake of Obama’s inauguration.
When Conor Oberst of Bright Eyes fame releases songs like “When The President Talks To God,” it’s obvious he’s damn pissed. And when Eddie snarls on “World Wide Suicide” it’s blatant that he shares Conor’s fervour. But what about when Canadian lyrical hero Gordon Downie snarled about “Things to kill and eat” on “Gus: The Polar Bear From Central Park?” That one didn’t bat too many listeners over the head as a protest song on first listen. Yet it’s just as poignant if not more poignant, simply because of that reason: it doesn’t bat you over the head. The listener must strive to realize the metaphor. Then and only then is the realization that much more gratifying. And if we’ve learned anything about the indie kids that artists like Oberst and the Decemberists are trying to reach, it’s that they don’t eat things served to them on an obvious silver platter. But many of these kids are going to be voting for the first time in November and already the artists they look upto are serving them their choice on something similar to a silver fucking platter.
Art is inherently political, regardless of the creator or the message. Leave the academic assumptions aside, because when the message is steeped in obvious rhetoric it becomes the stuff of laughable protest. (Re: Green Day leading off “Rock Against Bush, Volume Two” with a tune called “Favourite Son”) Put two protest songs together and the more subversive number is the one that usually grows a legacy. Or at the very least it becomes a more effective vehicle for political change. When the Decemberists play a show solely in support of Barack Obama, it’s more than easy to see through (And lose a little faith in) their obtuse lyrics that tell a translucent story.
Politics being that proverbial white elephant in rock and roll’s bedroom, it was genuinely surprising to hear Ed mention Obama in New York City. When the remaining four members of Pearl Jam released a marginally lame knockoff of the Bill Haley and The Comets tune entitled “Rock round Barack,” Vedder held out. What does it take for a politician to gain the support of a rock and roll band? What exactly is Obama telling them that he hasn’t told the general public? I’m all for secrecy and illusion in rock and roll, but when you mix politics into any drink, it better turn out to be a transparent one. “Hope for change” would be an insulting tagline for a rock writer to attach to a new record review; why would a band want to attach themselves to a moniker as simple as that?
The possibilities of art and politics in a mixed drink get me thirsty. But only when the idea of artists getting behind issues is raised. I wonder about the size of Colin Meloy’s (Or any artist’s) ego (Lead singer of the Decemberists) when he decides to bypass issues that are locally relevant to him and his band and throw all his philanthropic weight behind ol’ Obama. (I found no charity links on Conor’s site or the Decemeberists. And it’s 2008 dudes. If it’s easy enough for me to check it out, it should be easy enough for you to post a few links as well)
Bands with just as much indie pull as Conor and the Decemberists throw their support behind issues and keep their artistic integrity in tact. It’s easy to laugh at Elton John because he threw his support behind a loser (And a drama queen) though the joke would still be funny regardless of who gained the Democratic nomination. If indie rock is as humble as it was once meant to be (Re: college radio, the only medium for indie rock besides your fingertips and headphones) then Colin’s efforts might be best served with an organization like “Yellow Bird Project,” a non-profit organization that asks bands to design obscure and unique t-shirts made for indie rock fans. All the profits go to the charity of the band’s choice. There, The Shins back The Nature Conservatory and Wolfmother throw their support behind The Teenage Cancer Trust. Advocacy, helping folks who don’t get millions of dollars of support a month and fuckin’ swag, all mixed into one easily accessible drink. Sounds like what indie rock ought to sound like, yeah?
All that being said, I don’t know Colin Meloy personally, nor do I know much about the size of his ego or the size of his t-shirt. But by publicly backing Obama, he won’t achieve much. Art cannot and should not save the world, but the interpretation can and should. Bob Dylan didn’t really lend a finger to civil rights. He just sang folk songs. (Which sounds like a gross understatement, but history and Martin Scorcese have a way of hyping the inevitable) But the way in which hippies interpreted his obtuse lyrics gave a voice to a generation. It wasn’t Bob and his guitar that helped get Obama on the ticket, but those who listened and voiced their opinion. How would history remember Bob Dylan had he staunchly backed JFK?
It wasn’t just Bob that helped bring civil rights to the forefront. It wasn’t just Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall. It wasn’t only Leon Trotsky that brought Communism to Russia either, despite how cool his name was. Likewise, Barack Obama won’t end the war in Iraq alone. One person wasn’t responsible for social change, many were at the grassroots level. This is a glaring omission in Colin Meloy’s social justice resume.
I’ve just thrown “Chimes of Freedom” on, auspiciously of course. Naturally, everyone has a right to voice whatever they’d like to, regardless of social stature. (Or how much play you get in Rolling Stone) But it occurs to me how much louder I’d sing along if Conor and Colin were beside me in the crowd at an Obama rally instead of singing at me from what can be considered nothing less than a pulpit. Stop worrying about what happens when the President talks to God and start considering the plumber you may have ended up like had you not listened to a Dylan record all those years ago.
Yet somehow, a few months before the entire western world (Or everyone with a high-speed internet connection and a propensity to download music, regardless of their geographical proximity to Washington) will make proverbial love to either John McCain or Barack Obama, artistic integrity seems to matter. People are not so concerned with right or wrong, or right or left. Those with an affinity for popular culture are becoming concerned about where their favourite artist stands on the election. This isn’t a rarity in the slightest; it’s just overwhelmingly important in 2008. “Hope for Change” isn’t just an idea anymore. That idea has evolved into a polarizing force. Artists like Conor Oberst, the Decemberists and Eddie Vedder aren’t a reason to rush to your local record store on new release Tuesdays; they’ve become a reason to run head-first towards a polling station this coming November.
Now of course, there’s nothing wrong with an artist making you want to get off your ass and do something radical anytime of the year. Yet there might be something hazardous about ol’ Eddie making you want to dash to said polling station sometime around dinner in November.
It’s inevitable that all art lends itself to politics in some form. But the idea of an artist lending itself to a politician in a transparent and obvious form is where the honey gets real sticky. More importantly, when that happens, indie kids everywhere ought not to lend themselves to that politician as well but ditch their headphones and actually listen to (And realize) what’s happening.
Bob Dylan might have been the most overtly influential political singer-songwriter, ever. (I should stress, he MIGHT have been) But it’s also impossible to associate and assimilate Bob with any politician of past or present. Artists make a drastic mistake in campaigning for Barack Obama. (As so many musicians with indie cred have or will soon do) The fundamentals of democracy and politics should not be overlooked, regardless how high a rating your last record scored on Pitchfork. Don’t tour in support of Barack Obama (Or anyone for that matter) and associate yourself and your fans with that vote; real artistic integrity means questioning politicians and making them work for you by earning your vote.
I am nowhere near eligible to vote in the upcoming presidential election. But I was blown away earlier this year in New York City upon hearing Eddie Vedder voice muffled support for Barack Obama. I’m sure many Pearl Jam fans were. (Not for getting political in New York City of all places but for backing a politician as likeable and popular as Obama) Naturally, as an impressionable Pearl Jam fan (And one at the will of months of built-up adrenaline, waiting for the gig) I became engrossed with the creation of Obama’s myth while not totally lending an ear to his politics.
Soon enough, I became aware of a slew of like-minded, left-leaning artists with oceans of indie cred between them who have bought a first-class ticket on the Obama train. Again, this isn’t out of place or uncommon in the slightest. But it’s fair to have an ocean of wonder as to where these artists will stand if Obama fucks up on the job. (Dude’s already admitted to smoking dope, after all)
It’s more than fair for an artist to campaign for a change in the politics which dictate how she or he lives. Or is it? Would it actually be that beneficial for Eddie Vedder if Obama was elected President? Though every band this side of Amsterdam jumping on the “We hate ol’ Georgie boy” bandwagon certainly seems like a bit of a trend, at least it’s polarizing and at least there’s a muse that forces them to sing about something meaningful. It pains me to think about the rise of the collective egos of these leftist artists if Obama is elected. God knows how many terrible noise-rock records could be released in the wake of Obama’s inauguration.
When Conor Oberst of Bright Eyes fame releases songs like “When The President Talks To God,” it’s obvious he’s damn pissed. And when Eddie snarls on “World Wide Suicide” it’s blatant that he shares Conor’s fervour. But what about when Canadian lyrical hero Gordon Downie snarled about “Things to kill and eat” on “Gus: The Polar Bear From Central Park?” That one didn’t bat too many listeners over the head as a protest song on first listen. Yet it’s just as poignant if not more poignant, simply because of that reason: it doesn’t bat you over the head. The listener must strive to realize the metaphor. Then and only then is the realization that much more gratifying. And if we’ve learned anything about the indie kids that artists like Oberst and the Decemberists are trying to reach, it’s that they don’t eat things served to them on an obvious silver platter. But many of these kids are going to be voting for the first time in November and already the artists they look upto are serving them their choice on something similar to a silver fucking platter.
Art is inherently political, regardless of the creator or the message. Leave the academic assumptions aside, because when the message is steeped in obvious rhetoric it becomes the stuff of laughable protest. (Re: Green Day leading off “Rock Against Bush, Volume Two” with a tune called “Favourite Son”) Put two protest songs together and the more subversive number is the one that usually grows a legacy. Or at the very least it becomes a more effective vehicle for political change. When the Decemberists play a show solely in support of Barack Obama, it’s more than easy to see through (And lose a little faith in) their obtuse lyrics that tell a translucent story.
Politics being that proverbial white elephant in rock and roll’s bedroom, it was genuinely surprising to hear Ed mention Obama in New York City. When the remaining four members of Pearl Jam released a marginally lame knockoff of the Bill Haley and The Comets tune entitled “Rock round Barack,” Vedder held out. What does it take for a politician to gain the support of a rock and roll band? What exactly is Obama telling them that he hasn’t told the general public? I’m all for secrecy and illusion in rock and roll, but when you mix politics into any drink, it better turn out to be a transparent one. “Hope for change” would be an insulting tagline for a rock writer to attach to a new record review; why would a band want to attach themselves to a moniker as simple as that?
The possibilities of art and politics in a mixed drink get me thirsty. But only when the idea of artists getting behind issues is raised. I wonder about the size of Colin Meloy’s (Or any artist’s) ego (Lead singer of the Decemberists) when he decides to bypass issues that are locally relevant to him and his band and throw all his philanthropic weight behind ol’ Obama. (I found no charity links on Conor’s site or the Decemeberists. And it’s 2008 dudes. If it’s easy enough for me to check it out, it should be easy enough for you to post a few links as well)
Bands with just as much indie pull as Conor and the Decemberists throw their support behind issues and keep their artistic integrity in tact. It’s easy to laugh at Elton John because he threw his support behind a loser (And a drama queen) though the joke would still be funny regardless of who gained the Democratic nomination. If indie rock is as humble as it was once meant to be (Re: college radio, the only medium for indie rock besides your fingertips and headphones) then Colin’s efforts might be best served with an organization like “Yellow Bird Project,” a non-profit organization that asks bands to design obscure and unique t-shirts made for indie rock fans. All the profits go to the charity of the band’s choice. There, The Shins back The Nature Conservatory and Wolfmother throw their support behind The Teenage Cancer Trust. Advocacy, helping folks who don’t get millions of dollars of support a month and fuckin’ swag, all mixed into one easily accessible drink. Sounds like what indie rock ought to sound like, yeah?
All that being said, I don’t know Colin Meloy personally, nor do I know much about the size of his ego or the size of his t-shirt. But by publicly backing Obama, he won’t achieve much. Art cannot and should not save the world, but the interpretation can and should. Bob Dylan didn’t really lend a finger to civil rights. He just sang folk songs. (Which sounds like a gross understatement, but history and Martin Scorcese have a way of hyping the inevitable) But the way in which hippies interpreted his obtuse lyrics gave a voice to a generation. It wasn’t Bob and his guitar that helped get Obama on the ticket, but those who listened and voiced their opinion. How would history remember Bob Dylan had he staunchly backed JFK?
It wasn’t just Bob that helped bring civil rights to the forefront. It wasn’t just Reagan that brought down the Berlin Wall. It wasn’t only Leon Trotsky that brought Communism to Russia either, despite how cool his name was. Likewise, Barack Obama won’t end the war in Iraq alone. One person wasn’t responsible for social change, many were at the grassroots level. This is a glaring omission in Colin Meloy’s social justice resume.
I’ve just thrown “Chimes of Freedom” on, auspiciously of course. Naturally, everyone has a right to voice whatever they’d like to, regardless of social stature. (Or how much play you get in Rolling Stone) But it occurs to me how much louder I’d sing along if Conor and Colin were beside me in the crowd at an Obama rally instead of singing at me from what can be considered nothing less than a pulpit. Stop worrying about what happens when the President talks to God and start considering the plumber you may have ended up like had you not listened to a Dylan record all those years ago.
Update: Here I was thinking Jim James was a cut above. Even though their latest record sucked, I still had hopes for the future. I may have spoke too soon.
No comments:
Post a Comment