Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  08:37:50

So this is not about politics per se (I very much respect and adhere to the "keep politics off BHO" rule).  But this is more about the challenge of being a songwriter and musician who cares about politics. 

I'm working on a ph.d. in public policy, so I study American government and politics for a living.  Not surprisingly, I have some strongly held beliefs about public problems, potential solutions to them, and the political process.  I'm also a songwriter and a banjo player. 

So I've been struggling with how to write songs that express my political beliefs.  I mean, I'm passionate about those things.  I want to express them, just like people want to express love or anger or fear or whatever in their songs.  Some peopel seem to think that politics and art can't be combined at all.  I disagree.  It's very hard to write a good political song that's not cheesy or didactic or overly self-righteous, but I think it's doable, and I think it's a worthy type of art. 

Studying American political science, I also know that our country is extremely politically polarized at this point in our history.  Which means that if I write an overtly political song, I run the chance of alienating half my audience.  I've had this argument with my bandmates.  They're worried about losing money, losing gigs, offending people, etc.  I'm thinking, "yeah, but is that what Bob Dylan thought when he wrote Masters of War?"  (Not that I'm in the same league as Dylan as a songwriter, but clearly, the guy wasn't afraid to alienate people).  On the other hand, despite how much we associate the late 60's with conflict in our selective historical memory, compared to today, it was a much less polarized time politically (there are lots of different ways this can be proved by empirical data).

Anyway, just some thoughts on this struggle. 

Note to responders:  This IS NOT a place to express the content of your particular views, but if you're like me and care about politics AND music and struggle to combine them, would love to hear from you. 

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 08/21/2012:  08:46:50

Good post, Joe.  I'm on the road today, but I'll probably pm you in a day or so.

figmo59 - Posted - 08/21/2012:  08:52:07

It id ah good subject...

I guess one just has ta take ah stand....n...let tha chips fall....where thay...may.

Kindah...Danm tha torpedos....full steam ahead..

pandjlocke - Posted - 08/21/2012:  09:06:59

Where would we be, musically that is, if artists like the aforementioned Dylan, Pete Seeger, Woody Guthrie and many others were afraid that they would lose an almighty dollar because of their content? I say write what moves your heart. We need to get rid of the fear that has us in its grip and start living each day fully. And if you can take your stand through songwriting, more power to you. I wish you the best of luck in your venture.

Trewq36 - Posted - 08/21/2012:  09:17:30

Ah, But hold on there a moment and reflect what is going on with the band "Pu$$y  Riot"....???

I knew I would have trouble with that word.....

Edited by - Trewq36 on 08/21/2012 09:19:11

Kenneth Logsdon - Posted - 08/21/2012:  09:28:09

Check out the songs and backgrounding of Jean Ritchie... True to life struggles and the life of the mountain peoples as the big coal companies stripped the mountains..

Paul R - Posted - 08/21/2012:  09:48:16

Hmmm ... Dylan wrote "When the Ship Comes In" after being refused service at a hotel front desk! He could take inspiration from almost anything, but wrote that song after a personal encounter, not from seeing a societal flaw.

You're in a band. You need to take the feelings of the other members into account. Your songwriting may be something for your solo career - a true test of your commitment*. (I recall David Crosby's rant - to be found on YouTube - at the Monterey Pop Festival, when he harangued the crowd about the assassination of JFK. He was mostly projecting his ego, and lording it over the rest of the band in the process. The end result, a few months later, was that he was fired from the Byrds.)

That being said, there are plenty of examples of bands, right up to the present, that aren't afraid to show their views both in songwriting and in their choice of gigs.

* The difference between dedication and commitment is like bacon and eggs. The chicken is dedicated, but the pig is truly committed.

eagleisland - Posted - 08/21/2012:  10:02:42

Joe, as one who actually lived through the '60s (instead of studying them as an academic), I can assure you that things were plenty polarized back then.  In some ways, maybe more so than today.

To your "question," if such it was: good songwriting is good songwriting, and I don't think it matters much if the central theme of a given song is love, despair, cars, dogs, jail or politics.  It could be argued that there are only so many stories in the world - or, to be more general, only so many great themes.  Nor does it matter if the story has been told before - in fact, if it did, there would only be one love song and we'd all be sick to death of it.

Good songwriting is about examining one of those themes as efficiently as possible, and telling an old story in a new way - with words that make sense and a melody that supports the words, so that you touch peoples' hearts.

And that's regardless of what your topic is.  It's not particularly hard to do.  But it's damned hard to do well.

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  10:02:54

quote:

---

You're in a band. You need to take the feelings of the other members into account. Your songwriting may be something for your solo career -

---

Yeah, this is a good point and is one I've considered but don't have a good answer for.  There's no band "leader."  Nobody is in charge.  That makes all sorts of decisions difficult, including but not limited to which songs we perform.  I'm a very political person, but they're not.  On the other hand, my singer is perfectly fine with singing the love songs, etc that I wrote, despite them not reflecting his experience.  I don't know.  I don't think there are norms for stuff like this. 

The solo career thing is a good point as well.  The whole "I can't really sing" issue makes that somewhat less attractive, but it's an option.  Keep the overtly political stuff for my solo art and the less (overtly) political stuff for the band.   

 

eagleisland - Posted - 08/21/2012:  10:05:58

If it's truly a good song a good singer will sing it regardless of whether he agrees with it or not.  I never shot anyone and went to jail for doing so, and am reasonably certain that such a fate will never be mine.  But I have no problem singing a good song about doing so - and if I sing it well, people will wonder how I got out of the pokey given my heinous actions..

Edited by - eagleisland on 08/21/2012 10:07:16

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  10:20:18

quote:

---

Originally posted by eagleisland

If it's truly a good song a good singer will sing it regardless of whether he agrees with it or not. 

---

Hey, thanks for your thoughts!  I don't agree with this statement though.  It doesn't reflect the conversations I've had with my singer. 

eagleisland - Posted - 08/21/2012:  10:36:03

Like I said, a good song is a good song. Personally, I've never thought that songs that boil down to "look at what those villainous bastitches on the other side are doing!" was good songwriting.  It's not - it's sloganeering. 

Tell a good story, and you might have something.

Consider Dylan's "Times They Are A-Changin'."  By any measure the song was political (although Dylan himself made clear later that he wasn't particularly concerned about '60s era politics).  Instead, it examined a great theme in a compelling way.  Some interpreted the song as a threat; others interpreted it as a hopeful promise, but either way, it's powerful and remains powerful decades later. It's good songwriting.

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  10:57:26

quote:

---

Originally posted by eagleisland

Like I said, a good song is a good song. Personally, I've never thought that songs that boil down to "look at what those villainous bastitches on the other side are doing!" was good songwriting.  It's not - it's sloganeering. 

Tell a good story, and you might have something.

Consider Dylan's "Times They Are A-Changin'."  By any measure the song was political (although Dylan himself made clear later that he wasn't particularly concerned about '60s era politics).  Instead, it examined a great theme in a compelling way.  Some interpreted the song as a threat; others interpreted it as a hopeful promise, but either way, it's powerful and remains powerful decades later. It's good songwriting.

 

---

Yeah, I am aware that not all songs are of equal quality, be they political or not.

  What I disagree with is that ANY singer on the planet earth would be happy to express any ideology or sentiment as long as it was couched in a good song.  I don't normally like to toot my own horn, since there's nobody here to do it for me, and since it's relevant to this discussion,  I can tell you I'm a pretty good songwriter and know good songwriting from bad, and I can tell you that I've written some good stuff that my singer just doesn't want to sing. for fear of offending people.

Therefore, your blanket statement is not accurate in my case. 

eagleisland - Posted - 08/21/2012:  11:15:44

Follow yer bliss.

Gary Blanchard - Posted - 08/21/2012:  11:23:34

I write songs that promote peace, hope, and unity. They are not "anti" anything, and avoid, for the most part, any partisanship. (You can't totally avoid being partisan in a polarized society.) I think there are people on both ends of the spectrum who would have issue with my songs; that tells me I'm hitting right where I want to.

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  11:23:50

Thanks!  Same to you. 

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  11:27:56

See, that's my point.  Being angry about something does not disqualify it from being a legitimate artistic topic.  Anger is often a justified emotion, and blame is sometimes warranted.  Both can be expressed artistically with the same devotion to form, structure, melody, nuance, originality, etc as other sentiments. 

BConk - Posted - 08/21/2012:  11:36:44

Polarization has its benefits - less glare for example...though most people can only see in black and white.

kipperr - Posted - 08/21/2012:  12:47:22

I read a lot of history, so I'd be interested in your statement that "On the other hand, despite how much we associate the late 60's with conflict in our selective historical memory, compared to today, it was a much less polarized time politically (there are lots of different ways this can be proved by empirical data)."

What kinds of data are you referring to? It's a very interesting topic, and I'd be curious to take a look.

As others have said about your dilemma: if you're in a band, you need to consider the member's wishes as well; on your own, sing whatever you feel. Music isn't about money, unless you want to make it that.

Very interesting post.

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  13:04:56

Sure!  Political scientists have found a variety of ways to measure polarization. Generally, they break it down into two "levels," polarization at the elite level (among elected officials and people who are active in the day-to-day operations of the parties) and polarization at the mass level among voters. 

They measure the first kind by looking at how legislators vote.  There are some complicated statistical procedures for doing that, but basically they look at how much cohesion there is within a party and how much distance there is between the parties.  The 50's was a time when there was a lot of overlap in how legislators voted.  Those tumultuous events of the 60s started the ball rolling toward polarization (a lot of the change had to do with the Civil Rights movement and how that changed people's party affiliation), but despite how much unrest there appeared (riots, protests, etc), it took quite a while for those events to filter into legislators' voting behavior. 

At the mass level, there is even more of a "lag."  There is less consensus on this among political scientists than there is on the elite polarization issue.  Some political scientists think voters only appear polarized because their choices are polarized, but others think the masses eventually follow the cues of the elites.  I think as more evidence accumulates, the latter is seeming more supported by the data.

Here's a book that explains it :  amazon.com/Disappearing-Center...arization

And here's a famous book that argues the polarization is only at the elite level.  It's pretty readable to a non-social scientist.  amazon.com/Culture-War-Myth-Po...s=fiorina

Edited by - Joe the banjo guy on 08/21/2012 13:06:52

Bill Rogers - Posted - 08/21/2012:  13:11:48

I won't provide links, but two contemporary rock/country singers are vocally expressing their politics, though not necessarily in song.  You should be able to find it on the major newspapers' websites....  Bruce Springsteen certainly has used his songs for social/political commentary.  Woody Guthrie was the master at this.  His songs are still the "how to" textbook for budding political/social songwriters.

steve davis - Posted - 08/21/2012:  13:14:46

I don't recognize any difference of "elite" from "normal folk".

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  13:20:05

Woody is definitely one of my heroes.  It's amazing how relevant his songs are today.  There's a contemporary folk group called The Atomic Duo that I admire a lot in the same vein. 

donc - Posted - 08/21/2012:  14:46:33

It all depends in your position. Are you a free agent or do you have to tow a company line? The company line usually means keeping quiet about sensitive issues. This question comes up in most of our lives as we protect our careers in the ordinary business world. It also enters our social lives as we develop friendships from the political right and left. People with honest political aspirations won't let any of those elements get in their way. They feel they have an important message and that it must be delivered.

kipperr - Posted - 08/21/2012:  15:15:29

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe the banjo guy

Sure!  Political scientists have found a variety of ways to measure polarization. Generally, they break it down into two "levels," polarization at the elite level (among elected officials and people who are active in the day-to-day operations of the parties) and polarization at the mass level among voters. 

They measure the first kind by looking at how legislators vote.  There are some complicated statistical procedures for doing that, but basically they look at how much cohesion there is within a party and how much distance there is between the parties.  The 50's was a time when there was a lot of overlap in how legislators voted.  Those tumultuous events of the 60s started the ball rolling toward polarization (a lot of the change had to do with the Civil Rights movement and how that changed people's party affiliation), but despite how much unrest there appeared (riots, protests, etc), it took quite a while for those events to filter into legislators' voting behavior. 

At the mass level, there is even more of a "lag."  There is less consensus on this among political scientists than there is on the elite polarization issue.  Some political scientists think voters only appear polarized because their choices are polarized, but others think the masses eventually follow the cues of the elites.  I think as more evidence accumulates, the latter is seeming more supported by the data.

Here's a book that explains it :  amazon.com/Disappearing-Center...arization

And here's a famous book that argues the polarization is only at the elite level.  It's pretty readable to a non-social scientist.  amazon.com/Culture-War-Myth-Po...s=fiorina

 

---

 Oh, VERY cool....

steve davis - Posted - 08/21/2012:  15:49:35

What does "Follows the cues of the elites" mean.
I follow my own cues.

Joe the banjo guy - Posted - 08/21/2012:  15:58:59

Steve, all I can say is that most voters aren't quite so independently minded.  Most voters take their voting cues from other people, generally people who are important in their party or who are "opinion leaders," like media figures or simply people they know who are more tuned into politics than they are.