Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Steve Earle's political views during a concert as as much a part of his act as others who do their greatest hits, playing new material no one likes, guitar solos, telling bad jokes or engage in long rambing stories or do anything else they consider entertaining. Simply because you pay for a show doesn't mean you get to decide what the person on stage gets to do. You can walk out, but really you buy into the performance once you pay for it. There isn't any way Steve Earle is giong to just shut up and play hsi songs (some of which are highly political anyway, as we all know). At this late date I can't believe we are still debating this. Homophobic rants aren't very entertaining to most people (some might consider it fine however), so clearly most of us would pass on seeing Michelle Shocked in the future. LouieBSome of us would pass on seeing Michelle Shocked no matter her stance on GLBT stuff.If I want to be preached at, I'll go to church.If I want a political discourse, I'll go to someone who may actually have an educated opinion. I find Rock Stars scolding me to be tiresome. I love Steve Earle, and I'm pretty sure I would find his discourses tiresome.No...I take that back. I studied Political Science in college. I've had my fill of that shit.Hardliners of any stripe are unappealing.Being scolded is tiresome. Artists have lost the art of subtlety and their sense of art. Which song stands up better "Ohio" or "Let's impeach the President"? I'm not saying 'shut up and play your guitar' , but, damnit "Shut up and play your guitar". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bigideas Posted March 27, 2013 Share Posted March 27, 2013 Michelle has roots in my hometown, I believe. I'm not sure I heard of her until checking the town's wikipedia entry one time.I still am not familiar with her music.One local guitar teacher supposedly taught her, Miranda Lambert and Kacey Musgraves (new country artist starting to make it big) all from East Texas. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
remphish1 Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 http://www.pollstar.com/news_article.aspx?ID=804669 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 Sad. Really looking like a breakdown of some sort. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 29, 2013 Share Posted March 29, 2013 If you delve into her background, the first words that come to mind are "mentally ill" and "time bomb waiting to explode". Quote Link to post Share on other sites
anthony Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 As much as I disagree with homopobia and bigotry, I still feel there is a place in music for an artist to express a message (whether you agree with the message of not). This tradition dates back to (at least) Woody Guthrie. I get the "shut up and play" perspective, but I appreciate Steve Earle's rants and Bright Eyes "President Talks to God" type stuff. It is just unusual for an artist to be so ... unprogressive, isn't it? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 And I find it really ironic and more than a bit amusing that 'progressive' folks get bent out of shape when an artist espouses opinions that they don't agree with. I am not a big fan of any artist expressing any sort of political opinions. It speaks of hubris to my mind. I get just as irritated at the prospect of Michelle Shocked bashing gays as I do listening to Bruce Springsteen espousing economic equality.Michelle Shocked portrayed herself is what can be considered as being at least Bi-sexual earlier and Bruce Springsteen has more money than God.Glass houses and such. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 As much as I disagree with homopobia and bigotry, I still feel there is a place in music for an artist to express a message (whether you agree with the message of not). This tradition dates back to (at least) Woody Guthrie. I get the "shut up and play" perspective, but I appreciate Steve Earle's rants and Bright Eyes "President Talks to God" type stuff. It is just unusual for an artist to be so ... unprogressive, isn't it? For some it exists just as long as they agree with the artist's opinions. I have a more pure and unyielding opinion. "I don't care what you think about gays or the rich, I don't care what you think about race relations or war. How about expressing an opinion of string theory? You are just as qualified to discuss sub-atomic Nuclear physics as you are Politics, Religion, the economy or morals" Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Why shouldn't any of us talk about politics or religion, or anything else, for that matter? Are these topics off limits to anyone but politicians or talking heads on TV? I am an artist, a poet and novelist, but I do medical writing for work. Should I avoid that topic because I have less expertise than a doctor? I have always felt very strongly that, in a free society, we should be able to speak freely about what we choose, and one's job description has nothing to do with that.If everyone thought about this the way you do, there never would have been an audience for it. Most of my favorite songwriters - Bob Dylan, Phil Ochs, Bruce Cockburn - would have been limited to love songs. I can't imagine a world without This Land Is Your Land, The Times They Are A Changing, Love Me I'm A Liberal, Masters of War, If I Had A Rocket Launcher, Stolen Land, If A Tree Falls, Ohio, Here's To The State of Richard Nixon, Deportees, Give Peace a Chance, There Is Power In A Union, Strange Fruit, Only A Pawn In Their Game, Mississippi Goddam, Too Many Martyrs, Draft Dodger Rag, I Ain't Marchin' Anymore, White Boots Marching In A Yellow Land, and a thousand other songs that have made up a big part of the soundtrack of my life for the past thirty-plus years.As for disagreeing with someone's viewpoint, that was not at all the issue here. If Hank Williams, Jr. comes out on stage tomorrow night and says Obama is a douche and should be impeached, I got no quarrel with that. He has a microphone, and he has an audience. The issue was that Michelle Shocked, widely considered a lesbian and therefore sympathetic to the cause of the LGBT community, came out and gave her own fan base a kick in the gut. I'm sure that if Hank Williams, Jr. came out on stage and said Obama is his hero and we should legalize gay marriage in all fifty states, his own fans would feel betrayed. But this was even worse, because it was personal. That's why people got bent out of shape. Gays are a tiny minority of the population, and they really don't need anyone else picking on them, least of all someone they thought was their friend and supporter.See the difference? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Magnetized Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Totally agree with Mr. Heartbreak on this one. I have no problem with artists who express their political or religious opinions, onstage or offstage. They are entitled to use their prominence as a platform for whatever issues or ideas they want to espouse. And we, as patrons and fans, can choose to embrace them, reject them, or remain neutral. We beat this dead horse into the ground in another thread. I think the problem comes in when we experience cognitive dissonance. If I loved Ted Nugent's music, I'd have to make a choice whether I wanted to support him because his ideas are hateful to me. To me it wouldn't matter whether I just knew about his ideas from offstage interviews or whether he chose to use onstage time to testify--I'd be turned off either way and would definitely start souring on the music. But others may care only about stage time being taken up with political, social or religious expression, regardless of whether you agree or disagree. That's fine, too--you're free to withhold your support from that artist. There's plenty of music out there. The Michelle Shocked thing was completely different. I think she's been having one long nervous breakdown over many years. She may have been trying to be ironic or provocative and just didn't come across as she intended to. Randy Newman has famously said something along the lines of "Irony doesn't translate well in a car with the top down, cruising down the highway." Well, I'd say the same thing about trying to make a subtle point onstage--it takes finesse, which I don't think Michelle Shocked has. (This is just the most generous interpretation of what she may have been trying to say, by the way--it really might have been exactly what it seemed--self-hating, homophobic, born again rantings.) But whatever her intentions were, we are all free to just leave her alone. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Well said, Mike. One of the things I always liked about The Dead was their (near) total disdain for using the microphone as a pulpit. In fact, in the 15 years I followed the band there was almost ZERO talking between tunes. About all you'd ever hear was "We'll be back in a little bit" (after set 1) and "Goodnight" (at the end of the show). Garcia, knowing their audience, was on record as saying that using the stage as a platform for expressing his opinions was pretty close to perfect fascism, as the audience was (mostly) too stoned to resist the suggestions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
uncool2pillow Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 I've got no problem when a message is embedded in an artful presentation. When I saw Mark Olsen and Gary Louris about 9 years ago, Olsen had a bunch of really awful anti-Bush songs. I didn't care for that and I don't care for monologues that detract from the art. It is the artist's right, but, in my view, it's not what I paid to see and I'd remember that the next time I had an opportunity to see that artist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 Garcia, knowing their audience, was on record as saying that using the stage as a platform for expressing his opinions was pretty close to perfect fascism, as the audience was (mostly) too stoned to resist the suggestions. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Heartbreak Posted March 31, 2013 Share Posted March 31, 2013 It is the artist's right, but, in my view, it's not what I paid to see and I'd remember that the next time I had an opportunity to see that artist.Sure, and you're well within your rights to boycott them or whatnot. One man's raison d'etre is another's poison pill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Oil Can Boyd Posted July 30, 2014 Author Share Posted July 30, 2014 Michelle Shocked has released an album consisting of silent songs that are named mostly after executives in the digital music world. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6191896/michelle-shocked-releases-silent-album-inaudible-women-of-songs-named-after-digital-music Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Doug C Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Michelle Shocked has released an album consisting of silent songs that are named mostly after executives in the digital music world. http://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6191896/michelle-shocked-releases-silent-album-inaudible-women-of-songs-named-after-digital-musicWow. She was a brilliant artist once. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted July 30, 2014 Share Posted July 30, 2014 Very sad, but at least she has thrown it over to CDbaby. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.