Applying socio/economic/political opinions in the lyrics of songs is nothing new. It seems over the past twenty years or so, it has been increasingly commonplace. And while some actually enjoy getting riled up listening to a musician spew his or her thoughts about politicians or social commentary is worthy to spend one’s time, I disagree. Here is why:
Too short
It seems that when a rapper or singer takes on the role of venting their personal views, they are considered courageous and—dare I say it—patriotic, according to those who already agree with them. But, what in-depth point can you get across in a span of a four-minute song of rhyme? Even as quickly as any rapper these days could mumble through their incomprehensible lyrics, what difference would it make to you or to others which controversial topic they chose to discuss? Will listening to a song make you change your mind and vote for the opposing faction? Doubtful. Will it change your mind in only several minutes? No. It takes hours upon hours of dedicated study to analyze the histories of global politics and communities plagued by injustice. A brief glimpse is just not enough.
Purpose
There’s a reason they tend not to play political songs at sports games. There would be brawls among the patrons in the stands, especially in the ultra-sensitive society we endure now. For example, just look at the National Anthem controversy in the NFL. It’s a matter of time that the tradition of saluting the flag as you stand among the ocean of other proud Americans is no more at football games. And from there, the outlawing will seep further into other sporting events. Enjoy it while it lasts.
Politics, as much as you might think should unite us, do not. They divide. Always have. Always will. It is not meant to be entertaining. If the politics you see are entertaining, it is because sources have manipulated it to a degree of clownish nonsense, and therefore, should not be taken seriously by any account. Music in its original form, since the beginning of time, works, because it helps the listeners appreciate life. It brings people together who do not know each other. It builds bridges. It is an art form, unlike any other medium in that the end product cannot be seen or physically realized. Because of this, the music strikes a particular cord within us that blossoms our inner being to enjoy ourselves, our family, our friends, nature, etc. In other words—music is pure. When class and rank are introduced, the essence of music becomes diluted and corrupt and intended for a particular audience, having no other avenue but to turn opinionated and ugly.
The Beat Goes On
Does it not seem counterproductive to provide a rhythmic pattern of drums and cymbals and electronic buzzes to a person preaching their political tirade, to sabotage their own agenda to maintain focus on the topic? If announcing your protest was so imperative to your cause, it plays that adding an element where dance—and therefore, a loss of attention on such an important topic—can alter the direction of purpose. Spoken word poetry, although extremely boring, proves a better avenue to insert one’s social commentary into the ether. You may still only have several minutes to convince a crowd, but at least they’re not shaking their tails to a bass-heavy loop as you spill disjointed views. The backing beat distracts the intended persuasion, rather than adding to its hopeful gathering of support from the opposition. If music were an intricate addition to the political spectrum at any level, wouldn’t current and future politicians not use this gimmick while speaking from their podiums?
Forever-ever?
Probably the most obvious, yet most unrealized, factor proving this point concerns the relevant longevity of the song.
Foremost, ask yourself, which songs with a social/political twist do you eagerly still listen to? Answer: None. At least, not in the same abundance as songs without the commentary. Why, though? Why are songs, if so powerful with their convincing nature to either demonize the flanking party or reinforce ideas already held by its members, not played after terms end, wars end, and injustices become corrected? One could argue that the song did its job successfully and it has no purpose to linger. Or, more likely, the song, with all its spot-on criticism, no longer has relevance in any future.
Surely, music lovers can agree: Wicked guitar riff aside, The Beatles Revolution with its name-dropping of Chairman Mao is irrelevant to the 21st century. Countless others fall under the same category of lyrics of yesteryear unimportance. Another example is Eminem’s Mosh, a 2004 call to arms to halt Bush’s re-election, which is not on anyone’s radar anymore. Political songs are done with the sole purpose of change. However, history has proven that more often than not, these movements arrive too late or without the strength the artists intended—thus, sadly, acting with little to no results. A likely reason for the lack of endurance is the specificity of the lyrics. Mentioning names or places or social policies in a song, all but guarantees an abrupt shelf life for that particular track by crystallizing moments in time.
However, sometimes, political songs with a general glaze of commentary, such as John Lennon’s classic, Imagine, do this well and keep the true meaning of its lyrics misunderstood to most. While, yes, it is possible to write a song that is politically charged without crossing into specifics, it is nearly impossible, or more commonly not done properly. Further, Lennon’s infamous legend of his anti-war stance, at the time of Imagine, was notable and didn’t need any more fleshing out.
Risk of Alienation vs. Reward of Support
While social commentary in music is not something this author considers appealing, that should not prevent it from birthing new versions. On the contrary, the excitement of drama such risks bring is worthy of attention. Looking out for the next song that transcends time (a la Imagine) is unexpected, but still, nonetheless interesting. However, the reward, as proven by acts like Eminem’s Brick of an album last year, fortifies my argument that too much specificity is akin to playing with fire. He alienated his fanbase by underestimating the times--plus, the album was one of his weakest efforts to date.
Except for experiencing another's social opinion for a span of a few minutes, I have yet to witness the power of social justice in music that has made a lasting change.
But, maybe you have. Let me know.
No comments:
Post a Comment