posted
I've recently been listening to Peter, Paul, and Mary and thinking of how cool protest songs are. They are an utterly peaceful way of debating issues. Particularly "Blowing in the Wind", "If I Had a Hammer", and songs like that. And I remembered the powerful imagery of putting flowers in the ends of soldiers' guns. How beautiful. I think we ought to write and sing more songs about what's really important. My hubby recently bought a guitar, and the family has been singing John Denver songs about being in the mountains and playing with family on "Grandma's Feather Bed". I think those lyrics are much more truthful and wonderful than most pop love songs.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are an utterly peaceful way of debating issues.
Protest songs don't debate the issue. There's no discourse or framework for dissent. They're all rather one-sided.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Define 'hurt.' They're a form of propaganda, which has a bad reputation for indirect harm.
:shrug:
I like folk music. But I don't have any illusions about it being the be-all-end-all of beautiful, peaceful, non-harmful discourse.
Plus, 'Blowing In the Wind,' irritates me. It is, in the end, a hopeless mess of wishy-washiness, whose only object is despair.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with you, Jenny. I like that era -- ever so much more than silly, stupid "pop" songs -- although those are fun to sing along with, time to time.
Nathan (my 12 year old) and I very much enjoy "Alice's Restaurant" -- I think we have all the lyrics memorized.
posted
Maybe it's because I wasn't around during the 60's. I like the pretty music, I like the sentiments. I think of them as the striving our hearts do. "All that we can be, and not what we are."
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Folk music is the music of my childhood. When I was little my parents were constantly playing Joan Baez, Peter Paul and Mary, Pete Seeger, Arlo Guthrie, and the like, and Wednesday Morning, 3 AM got more play than other Simon and Garfunkel albums. I definitely have a soft spot for music of that time period and genre, but I think that it's moment as a way of motivating people politically is long over. Many of the people who were active then still are, but the effect that they have on national political consciousness is negligible.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just thought the idea that I should pay particular attention to the political views of a musician or movie star funny.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the songs were so popular/influential because they embodied the ideals or thoughts of many people at the time.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps. Was before my time. Or maybe I think it's funny because I tend to disagree with many artists.
Posts: 880 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
"We are the folk song army, every one of us cares, We all hate poverty, war and injustice. Unlike the rest of you squares."
In fairness though... I really like the tune of most of those songs and could listen to them all day so long as I didn't examin the lyrics. ("Imagine" is one of those songs I love despite the fact that the lyrics are 100% pure communism)
posted
I like 60's folk, as long as I avoid contextualizing it with 60's political dissent. For instance, Scarborough Fair (Simon & Garfunkel's) is haunting and beautiful, and as an ideal of preventing violence and war I think it's great. But in the particulars of being an anti-Vietnam anthem, I feel disgust and shame. I feel similarly when I read Grapes of Wrath; topical protest art bugs me for some reason. I guess I just don't like the idea of an agenda, that the art is a tool for a social purpose. Art should exist for itself, not as an agent of change. So I admire the artistic achievements, but I think it's a lousy way of carrying out a dialogue.
And, as Scott pointed out, with folk music it's really a monologue. Lots of preaching to the choir. Although, you could broaden "folk" to include country, and then songs like "Okie from Muskogee" can offset some of the blithely idealistic urban folk mentality. In fact, I think country music at the time (Loretta Lynn, Merle Haggard, Johnny Cash) had more in common with traditional folk music than the more direct political progeny (Peter, Paul and Mary, Simon & Garfunkel, etc.) The Vietnam Era is fascinating in that the traditionally grass-roots, labor-centered socialism was co-opted by the affluent intelligensia. That's reflected in the music.
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: Perhaps the songs were so popular/influential because they embodied the ideals or thoughts of many people at the time.
I don't think the songs are remembered because they were particularly popular, but because they were popular with the group of people who became the teachers and role models of the next generation. In the late sixties I think lots more people were listening to Elvis Presley and Diana Ross than Joan Baez and Bob Dylan. I could be wrong; I haven't been able to find solid data either way in my 15 minutes of searching.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the thing that most enchants me about protest/folk music is the way the artists put what they believed in into their work. They weren't afraid to share hopes/dreams/ideals. They talked about something other than sex/love/money. Not enough people are doing that these days (outside of Hatrack, of course ). They valued life and the good green earth. And sometimes they were just happy about it.
Posts: 3141 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jenny Gardener: They weren't afraid to share hopes/dreams/ideals. They talked about something other than sex/love/money.
See, and I think this is great. I wish more art was idealistic, rather than insipid. I just don't like art used as a tool to evince social change. Or, more accurately, I don't like art-as-a-tool disguised as art-as-an-ideal. Hence, my comment earlier about divorcing anti-war music from it's context.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They are an utterly peaceful way of debating issues.
What debate? Show me one protest singer who ever allowed, say, a government official to do a guest appearance in a song presenting the other side of the issue.
I seriously doubt protest songs ever changed anyone's mind. They were a way for self-righteous hippies to express their self-righteousness in a form that other self-righteous hippies could appreciate. Whoop-de-do. I'm not that impressed when a bunch of young dropouts spend all their time getting high and playing music, and then imagine they understand the world better than the politicians who have devoted their lives to actually running the world.
Oddly enough, my opinion is that from a purely musical standpoint, the hippies created the best music of the twentieth century. I love a great deal of hippie music. But their politics were completely screwed up, and I would have had little sympathy with them had I actually been around in the '60s.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Art should exist for itself, not as an agent of change.
Do you really believe this, Senoj? You don't think the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was meant to provoke change in the viewer? Or do you not think it is "Art"? What about Political Cartoons? Are they not "art"? What about National Anthems? What about science fiction?
I think a huge part of what we call "Art" is the portrayal of the world as we would like it to be. Part of the desire many people have to share a vision through Art is to spark that vision in other people. Another part is to communicate with those who already share that vision and create a solidarity. Why do we sing hymns in church if not ultimately in the hope of bringing about change? Are hymns not "art" because they have an "agenda"?
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
Good points all; as I've thought about this and reposted I've refined my viewpoint. I'm not sure it's coherent yet, but I can try to explain it.
Take one of your examples, National Anthems. I can enjoy the artistic expression and idealism of the Star-Spangled Banner; I would have an aversion to an attempt to link the idealism of the Star-Spangled Banner with supporting (or opposing) the Iraq War (or even the War of 1812), because the sentiment of patriotism exists on a plane unrelated to supporting or opposing any specific war. Inspire patriotism and then let me decide what the connection to the topical plane is. Or produce something on the topical plane without trying to tell me what it means idealistically. It's more about art being true to itself and its intent than not being an agent of change (despite my earlier post).
I think that if the intent of art is to evince social change, the art should reflect that directly rather than masquerading as a polemic on, for example, the universal brotherhood of man. Otherwise I feel manipulated or condescended to.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: Here Here, Verily!
I'm so glad I was born in a time when I could appriciate the music without getting miffed about the message.
Now if I could only do that with Green Day...
I'm with you on that one. I was going to add a comment in reply those who think the political message disguised as art days are over but I just couldn't think of anything appropriate to say about the MTV mentality.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I really loved One Tin Soldier when we sang it at camp.
Man. I haven't heard that song in years. I loved it when I was tiny. I can remember singing it in preschool.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think those lyrics are much more truthful and wonderful than most pop love songs.
A fun way to make pop love songs into environmental songs = take the lyrics, and whenever they say "you," substitute in "the earth" -- so: "can't live without you," "I'm sorry I treated you so bad," "you are my everything," etc. all become much more meaningful. Posts: 2911 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think those lyrics are much more truthful and wonderful than most pop love songs.
A fun way to make pop love songs into environmental songs = take the lyrics, and whenever they say "you," substitute in "the earth" -- so: "can't live without you," "I'm sorry I treated you so bad," "you are my everything," etc. all become much more meaningful.
The earth are my everything?
Posts: 413 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: I really loved One Tin Soldier when we sang it at camp.
Man. I haven't heard that song in years. I loved it when I was tiny. I can remember singing it in preschool.
Chalk another one up for indoctrination, eh?
I remember singing protest songs in elementary school in northern California. Now that I think of it, it just makes sense - a bunch of hippies settled in a town just south of ours.
I'm trying to figure out who the "mountain people" were in "One Tin Soldier" as originally envisioned. Their perfect, peaceful ways just don't match anyone we were at war with at the time.
Posts: 73 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The amusing thing about Green Day's political ranting is how easy it is to invert with a few word substitutions. I rather enjoy their music while deliberately twisting the meaning of their songs around backwards.
Unfortunately, this is not a Weird Al moment...the songs, once inverted, probably lack appeal even to neo-cons, except for twisted-humor value.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm curious. Those of you who think that progressive folk songs are "propaganda" and not art, do you feel the same way about religious music.
All the religious music I know is most certainly intended to propagate particular beliefs and uses the emotion of music to instill a desired response to those beliefs. It doesn't matter whether we are talking about the hymn "Come follow me", the rock song "Jesus is just alright with me", or Bach's Mass in B minor. All religious songs use music to manipulate our feelings about religions. Does that make them propaganda?
And if you are offended because hippie folk singers seem smug and self-righteous, they don't exactly have a monopoly on that either.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ack...I am so embarrassed that I had to go look up information on the Indigo Girls to know what Icarus and MPH were talking about.
Rabbit, the majority of religious music (though not all) is directed at a limited audience within church walls. It may be somewhat evangelistic at times, but it only reaches those who have decided to attend the service anyway. Progressive folk music, by contrast, tends to be public and outer-directed--the thread, after all, is about "protest songs".
If my church marched the streets singing "Our God, He is Alive" (sometimes jokingly described as the "national anthem of the Church of Christ"), that might be propaganda. But who does that?
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think those lyrics are much more truthful and wonderful than most pop love songs.
A fun way to make pop love songs into environmental songs = take the lyrics, and whenever they say "you," substitute in "the earth" -- so: "can't live without you," "I'm sorry I treated you so bad," "you are my everything," etc. all become much more meaningful.
Wasn't there a South Park with Cartman writing christian rock by taking love songs and replacing "Baby" with "Jesus"?
quote:And if you are offended because hippie folk singers seem smug and self-righteous, they don't exactly have a monopoly on that either.
Don't recall anyone saying they did. Just because a lot of other people are smug and self-righteous doesn't make hippie folk singers any less so. And since hippie folk singers are exactly the topic of discussion for this thread, it doesn't make it any less valid to point out here that they are, either.
Posts: 1814 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if the definition of smug and self-righteous, for most people in general, isn't "Different from you and not ashamed of it." Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:If my church marched the streets singing "Our God, He is Alive" (sometimes jokingly described as the "national anthem of the Church of Christ"), that might be propaganda. But who does that?
When I was a missionary, it was not at all uncommon for us to perform music on street corners. The evangelists that come around this campus, frequently sing. Christian songs can be found on the radio. In fact their are stations that are totally dedicated to them. The Mormon Tabernacle choir broadcasts on TV every sunday morning.
I have found that people often take offense when they find themselves listening to a catchy toon that they like, until they realize that they disagree with most of the words. They feel like they've been sucked in. It doesn't really matter whether they are conservative christians listening to a song that glorifies free sex or granola eating liberals listening to a song that glorifies war.
I think its disengenuous to claim that this offense comes because the artists are deceptives or are smug and self-righteous.
I think we need to be honest about what's truly happening. I don't know any famous hippie folk singers well enough to know whether they are smug or self-righteous. I doubt anyone on this board does. I have observed that anyone who is an outspoken proponent of an ethical position is likely to be labeled smug and self-righteous by those who don't share their ethical values. I think its unfair when liberals label outspoken abortion opponents as smug and self-righteous based solely on their public statements and I think its unfair when conservatives label progressive singers as smug and self-righteous based solely on the words they sing.
Be honest. If what offended you about political folk music was that the singers were smug and self-righteous -- then you would also be offended by many church choirs. We are offended by the content of the songs and it is deceptive to claim that it has anything to do with the character of the singers.
What offends me about John Lennon's song Imagine is that I fundamentally disagree with his view that eliminating religion would make the world a better place. I could argue that the song upsets me because I think it was hypocritical for a millionare to be singing about having no possession, but I'd be decieving myself and unjustly judging Lennon. The song upsets me because I disagree with it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
). They valued life and the good green earth. And sometimes they were just happy about it.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
