Do You Care About Artist's Opinions?

[JDoors]

For example (though not specifically) The Dixie Chicks.

There are a lot of artists who's music or movies I love, but I just can't get past their personal opinions. Why should they use their fame (which they ONLY obtained due to the financial support of their fans) to express their opinion to the public, when the average citizen doesn't get that kind of coverage even though their opinion is JUST as important, just as valid?

Don't get me wrong, I express my opinion ... err ... A LOT! But I haven't obtained the influence many artists have, and that influence is based on what ... A talent for performance? How does that justify their using that talent to publicly express opinions on subjects that have nothing to do with that talent?

Put another way, they are USING their fame to broadcast an opinion, that fame is granted to them by their fans, so to me at least, it feels like they are USING their fans. I feel so used!

Am I justified in cutting off my support of their artistry? Should I support someone I think is a jerk? Or dumb? Or an idiot? Is it the same as an artist losing their audience because it's been discovered they have some bizarre problem (say, PeeWee Herman -- or an adulterer, etc.)?

OK, I'm rambling, to get to the reason I ask: I am playing k.d. lang's Ingenue CD (has Constant Craving on it). Her voice is just incredible. But when I hear her singing I ALWAYS remember seeing a poster of her supporting vegetarianism -- She was slapping a kiss on a cow ("oooo, you don't want to EAT this loveable animal" or something to that effect). I know what cows are like, you DON'T want to kiss one. It disgusted me to see that, and I cannot listen to her music without that picture popping up in my head.

There are probably more than a dozen artists who say or do stupid stuff and ... well ... it bothers me. Is it just me? (No way, it's NEVER me!)

Edited July 29, 2006 by JDoors

[Bubba Bob]

Am I justified in cutting off my support of their artistry?

Of course you are justified. Just like you are justified in not donating money to the organizations you don't like.( Just for the record, I'm ashamed the Ditsy Twits are from MY state.)

[Bubba Bob]

Am I justified in cutting off my support of their artistry?

Of course you are justified. Just like you are justified in not donating money to the organizations you don't like.( Just for the record, I'm ashamed the Ditsy Twits are from MY state.)

Apperently I'm just another dumb, redneck, Toby kieth fan. And, as we all know, the Ditsy Twits don't want those types of fans.... B@$#%$

Anyway, I hear ya with not gettin past the artist's views.

EDIT:

Whoops, somehow I split that up into two posts

Edited July 29, 2006 by Bubba Bob

[TheTerrorist_75]

If the music is good I listen to it. I don't care what the artist's view is. I have my own views and pay no mind to others. As for the Dixie Chicks they may share some of my views but their music isn't my scene. I like some of K.D. Lang's stuff yet I love eating beef. I hear her tunes without any pictures in my head of her kissing anything. I could never stand that pervert PeeWee or his show.

[bobbynichols]

My rant...

Everyone is entitled to an opinion in the USA. We exercise our opinion in who we vote for, what we buy, who we like, etc... yet we are diminished when we yield to unscrupulous manipulation by media moguls (or others) who have their own agendas.

The media simply makes money by spinning/demeaning/sensationalizing/scandalizing/trivializing/ (continue as you wish)... and does it very well.

PR, a media tool... in more than one sense of the word, works to build up and tear down public figures with impunity. This sells products, wins elections, and entertains... sometimes all at once.

Should I care what the Dixie Chicks believe? No. Am I diminished by boycotting their music if I disagree with their political views but loved their music before the media uproar... possibly yes. Why should I feel betrayed for the political views of a singer?

Be informed... honor your personal convictions... do not be manipulated.

[Honda_Boy]

Just cause I may not like any particular person's view don't mean I won't be their friend. I'm not majorily religious but I am a Methodist christian and my best friend is an Atheist. Oh well. I'm a Democrat. I have many republican friends. Oh well. I don't like the Dixie Chicks just cause their music sucks in my personal opinion. I hate country music but just cause that you shouldn't really just hate me. I do like bluegrass though (real country). If their music is good I think I'll listen. Back in the day of Napster I was mad at Metallica (rather their drummer) for bashing Napster. Oh well, I still listened to them (hardly ever now just cause my tastes have changed). Unless some one just ultimately pisses me off, I'll continue t listen what sounds good.

[blim]

Funny how you used DixieDorks as an example--I'm not a country music fan, either, but it was amusing how they "Bush bashed", lost fans, "apologized", lost more fans, "backtracked the apology", lost enough fans to have to cancel concerts--it was the "flip flopping" that irritated me. If I were a fan, I'd feel kinda taken advantage of.

I remember "back in the old days" when an artist expressed his or her views with their ART, not media interviews

One thing is that it can work both ways--think of Bono and all the good he's trying to do

Liz

[isteve]

I hate celebrities opinions on just about everything, not just political. They are so far separated from reality it's not funny. Like Paris Hilton and the vote or die campaign, after telling people how important it is to vote she forgot to register. And I remember a few years ago there was a huge save the earth rally in hollywood and all the beautiful people showed up in Humvee Limousines.

And I have always though most musicians and sports stars should never be give interviews, not because of their views just because most of them sound like morons.

[Honda_Boy]

they need Civic Limos don't they. Celebrities contridict themselves often that's why I hate most of them.

[robroy]

I agree with isteve to a great extent. There have been a few celebs who can talk sensibly about serious subjects, but not too many. most of them should stick to their acting or singing or sports

[JDoors]

... I remember "back in the old days" when an artist expressed his or her views with their ART, not media interviews ...

Which brings me to another specific situation that is one of the reasons this subject is on my mind. I like Pink (the singer). First three albums? Listen to them constantly. Not every track's a winner, but some are terrific.

So, she's got a new one out. So, there's a song named "Dear Mr. President" where she practically blames the President for everything bad that ever happened in the history of the universe (ok, I exaggerate).

I want the album, but sheesh, do I have to listen to a naive rant too? I don't have iPod/whatever, my players don't have a programmable memory (one does but I don't use that player much). I'm just hesitant to get the CD ... Hey, it might sound GREAT. I don't know, I've just seen the lyrics so far. Or it might sound like crap (heh-heh, I typoed "sound like carp"). I think I'm talking myself into buying it anyway. It's just on top of tons of other things I kinda feel like I have to draw a line in the sand, you know?

Back in the day ... Say, Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young, they spoke through their music (as did and do many artists). Back then, I had a less defined world view. Back then, songs about "the man" didn't bother me and CSN&Y songs about the man sounded just fine to me. You mentioned Bono, I don't fully agree with his politics but I can't fault them either (trying to save the world is hard to critisize, and it's certainly not stupid or naive).

But stupid artists? Cow-kissin', President dissin', promisin' to move out of the country if they don't get their way morons? It irks me.

[bearskin]

I think that everyone has their opinion, so my opinion is........the dizzy $hits should stay in france....and robert redford should move to canada...

[martymas]

just because you support a warmongers regime

dosent mean people cant have opinions

what has happened to american freedom of speech

most artist were against the war

not because off political beliefs

but because of the innocent people who die

or dont you guys c are about that

in iraq 17.000 people have died because of that war

and the posters on this thread condone it

it was started through a lie

marty

Edited July 31, 2006 by martymas

[snyper]

This is a very good thread..

I dont value artists opinion any more than i do the dog on the street. Thats why it anoys me that some artist that happens to be brain dead voices an opinion to young teens that have yet to form a political opinion.

Stick to singing or bouncing that ball i say.

[bobbynichols]

just because you support a warmongers regime

dosent mean people cant have opinions

what has happened to american freedom of speech

most artist were against the war

not because off political beliefs

but because of the innocent people who die

or dont you guys c are about that

in iraq 17.000 people have died because of that war

and the posters on this thread condone it

it was started through a lie

marty

People die... yes, we of America do cry for the righteous.

Marty... as I stated above... (IMHO) Everyone in the USA has a right to free speech... and everyone who wishes to vote in the upcoming elections will vote according their conscience and (unfortunately) vote for one of two candidates based on the spin of the media. The best man/woman for the job of President rarely even bothers to run for office, be it our country or anothers. It's not the best system, but until a better system comes around within our Constitutional parameters... it's what we have.

Artists, be it musicians, poets, writers, etc., are often seen as the conscience of the people through the media.

They swayed public opinion in the "conflict" of Vietnam, for good or ill (I'm certainly no judge) and perhaps led the country out of that imbroglio with the help of some very adroit negotiations by exceptional diplomats.

In WW II the darlings of the media, the movie stars and singers, led the country in helping to fight those who would have wished world domination in their time.

Todays media darlings have not been able to sway public opinion because of the dynamics of the following:

This conflict with Iraq, Afganistan, "The War on Terror" (what a wonderful PR phrase), was ignited by an attack on US soil. The pain of 9/11/2001 will forever be in the American psyche, as was Pearl Harbor in its time. Theoretically our (the USA) goal in the countries that we are now involved in are to stabilize the governments so that they might begin and continue to guide their own countries in peace, without the destabilization of militant extremism and terroristic tendancy.

There are those who say our leaders have gone over-board and made decisions based on faulty intelligence; and there are those that say the time was ripe to rid the regions of the leaders and followers who would harbor and nurture terrorism within and without. Again, I'm certainly no expert. As our people sift out the facts of all that is involved paradigms will shift... politicians, again not the best of the best, who are deemed imprudent will be replaced in office with similiar politicians, perhaps more in tune with the people.

People die in conflict. No one with sanity is happy about that. Conflict sucks... stopping the bad people so that the good people may lead happy lives is a worthy goal of any society. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.. a link by the way, is worthy of any society and is ingrained in the American consciousness.

Take a hypothetical leap with me...

Australia (now [again, hypothetically] a futuristic terrorist regime run by Foster guzzling football hoodlums... it could happen) invades North Island in New Zealand and dominates the land by terror. People die, there is an outcry, the singers sing, the actors do their thing. Bombs now fly to South Island from North Island and mainland Australia. People die, more outcry, the singers sing, the actors do their thing. Genocide reigns, the region's in pain. Where now lies the innocent bystander who once was able to look with horror upon other's pain; who once judged those who would help if they could.

You have a heart of gold Marty... so too the vast majority of the people of the USA and other countries. Judge not harshly those who would check terrorism, if that be their goal (again, I'm certainly not worthy to judge).

:Bobby Nichols

Moderator... forgive me... I will humbly acquiesce to the repression of this written word as outlined within the charter of this fair forum.

[jcl]

just because you support a warmongers regime

dosent mean people cant have opinions

what has happened to american freedom of speech

Nothing. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to criticize other people's speech. Artists know that well. It's how a lot of them pay their bills.

most artist were against the war

not because off political beliefs

but because of the innocent people who die

Generalizations are bad. Off the top of my head I can't think of single artist who's expressed an opinion about any recent event whose motivations I would claim to understand. Nevertheless, I would assume that some are motivated by humanitarian concern, but I would also be surprised if there weren't at least as many motivated by politics, economics, peer pressure, coin flips, and so on. And I mean on all sides. Artists are regular folks. They aren't more sensitive, insightful, or noble than anyone else. They support and oppose things for same reasons, and with the same variety of reasons, as everyone else.

Edited July 31, 2006 by jcl

[hitest]

Generalizations are bad. Off the top of my head I can't think of single artist who's expressed an opinion about any recent event whose motivations I would claim to understand. Nevertheless, I would assume that some are motivated by humanitarian concern, but I would also be surprised if there weren't at least as many motivated by politics, economics, peer pressure, coin flips, and so on. And I mean on all sides. Artists are regular folks. They aren't more sensitive, insightful, or noble than anyone else. They support and oppose things for same reasons, and with the same variety of reasons, as everyone else.

I like that, well-said, jcl!

[JDoors]

just because you support a warmongers regime

dosent mean people cant have opinions

what has happened to american freedom of speech

most artist were against the war

not because off political beliefs

but because of the innocent people who die

or dont you guys c are about that

in iraq 17.000 people have died because of that war

and the posters on this thread condone it

it was started through a lie

marty

And here we have the reason no politics are allowed here ...

I tried to be general, vague, or inject a touch of humor about the political views of the artists I mentioned. Others have addressed your points and it irks me that I cannot, so I'll say it with a smilie:

[JDoors]

This is a very good thread..

I dont value artists opinion any more than i do the dog on the street. Thats why it anoys me that some artist that happens to be brain dead voices an opinion to young teens that have yet to form a political opinion.

Stick to singing or bouncing that ball i say.

I mostly agree (I certainly can't complain about artists, say, speaking out against Apartheid <sp?> or poverty, even when I disagree with their so-called "solutions") but you're not helping me decide whether choosing NOT to support an artist because of their politics makes any sense. Is it a waste of time? (They'll likely continue speaking and influencing.) Am I only denying myself? (I do like their "art." Mostly.) Is the thought behind it important enough? (Is it enought to feel say, justified?)

The Dixie Chicks has shown that controversy can hurt their income. Ignoring for the moment the excessive nature of some of the reactions, they also lost sales. People voted with their pocketbooks.

All right, now I'm talking myself OUT of buying.

------

One of the reasons this profoundly affects me is the list of artists I vehemently disagree with is growing larger every day, or at least it appears that way. (Or am I just becoming more and more of a curmudgeon? That's a distinct possibility.). I resent being forced to cut off half the entertainment world because artists believe their fame gives them authority to speak out on topics that have nothing to do with the reasons for their fame.

Edited July 31, 2006 by JDoors

[bearskin]

let me propose a theoretical situation here.

let's pretend a small country like new zealand, which has a military budget of just a little over one billion dollars, and has disbanded their air force recently, was over run by a fanatical faction....who would come to their rescue?

probably the USA and Australia...and we would have to kill the intruders to restore the government.

have a good day y'all

[jcl]

Is it a waste of time? (They'll likely continue speaking and influencing.) Am I only denying myself? (I do like their "art." Mostly.) Is the thought behind it important enough? (Is it enought to feel say, justified?)

IMO: Yes, No, and Yes.

One of the reasons this profoundly affects me is the list of artists I vehemently disagree with is growing larger every day, or at least it appears that way. (Or am I just becoming more and more of a curmudgeon? That's a distinct possibility.).

I think it's a cyclical thing. It seems like the '80s and '90s were losers for 'message art'. The decades were downright boring compared to the '60s and '70s and the popular art forms were kinda lousy. It's hard to express serious political and social messages through hair rock and boy bands. The increasing number of artists trying to be 'relevant' is a sign that the art world is recovering and the world in general is getting more interesting.

[Honda_Boy]

One of the biggest reasons why I don't give a crap about artists views nwo is cause most of the crap I listen too is either from before the 90's or the band is from another country. Queensryche and Rush are still around and recording but Rush is Canadian and none of the younger generation even know what the hell Queensryche is. SO their views aren't even heard. My favorite band at the moment is from Norway and another that I like is from Finland, so do they care 'bout what's goin on here NO.

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions but American pop culture artists' opinions are usually retarded. I may not necessarily like Bush but the Dixie Chicks need to shut up. A lot of this country does, Particularly the South, their friggin fan base. Again American pop culture artist opinion RETARDED. If they want sales, no matter who they are, they need to just shut up.

[/RANT]

Edited August 1, 2006 by Honda_Boy

[Naming is hard]

Noones opinion but mine matters...to me.

[JDoors]

I think it's a cyclical thing. It seems like the '80s and '90s were losers for 'message art'. The decades were downright boring compared to the '60s and '70s and the popular art forms were kinda lousy. It's hard to express serious political and social messages through hair rock and boy bands. The increasing number of artists trying to be 'relevant' is a sign that the art world is recovering and the world in general is getting more interesting.

Well that's an interesting view.

I'm not sure I can agree that only "dissident" music is "interesting," but I sure can't deny the apparent trends. I think I find introspective lyrics more interesting than political dissent-- but of course it's all about the music when you get right down to it. CSN&Y's "Ohio" is a great sounding song, no matter what you think of the situation that sparked the lyrics. But then, Cat Steven's "Moonshadow" sounds great too, and ... what's THAT about?

"Protest" music has a long history, particularly in the U.S., but other than out of historical interest, who really wants to listen to Woody Guthrie rail about unions? Will Pink's song chastising the President be "interesting" to listen to years down the road? Or will it be a historical oddity?

Don't know what that has to do with should I buy it or not ...

[JDoors]

Noones opinion but mine matters...to me.

So you don't mind a good song even if the lyrics contain the opposite of what you believe in?