The Times They Have A'Changed

Neil Young has lately gone on record as bitching about the lack of “protest” singers, of current artists ready and willing to stand up to the evil ways of the Bush Administration. He has evidently been hanging around former Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young bandmates David Crosby and Graham Nash. Crosby has earlier bemoaned the lack of what he calls the “modern troubadour”.

I think all this is questionable myself. An acquaintance of mine has just recently explained to me, in voicing his agreement with Young, that this generation is just not “standing up”.

But what exactly is it they are not standing up to? What it seems to amount to is, when you get right down to it, Young wishes there were modern young rock artists who would devote the entirety of their careers to protesting the policies of the Bush Amdinistration. I mean,that has to be what he’s getting at, because there are certainly artists who have protested to some degree. You have not only the Dixie Chicks resurgence in popularity, but Green Day, and even the Rolling Stones, a band who at their height of creative influence and fame, in the sixties and early seventies, were not exactly known as protest singers, or for that matter even slightly socially conscous (though they did dabble a bit).

And outside the realm of music, you have of course other performers, the so-called Hollywood elite, who for the most part are obviously progressive or liberal, and as often as not self described as such. George Clooney, for example, has had no problem finding work in Hollywood, and last year saw two of his films nominated for Oscars-“Syrianna” and “Good Night And Good Luck”.

Nor do Hollywood artists seem to have any problem “standing up” on any various number of issues, for the most part liberal, but some conservative as well. Of course, I understand that Neil Youngs area of concern is that of rock music, but the plain fact is, this ain’t the sixties anymore. Meaning, most people don’t really care about political statements in art, in my opinion.

I should clarify that, though. It’s fine to make a political statement. But nobody wants to hear it all the time, neither from Hollywood film or television stars, or from rock musicians. Most people that like rock music, and top forties pop, want mainly to be entertained. They can appreciate a message song, or an issue oriented song, being included here and there. But to put it bluntly, they more often than not arent going to be influenced by it one way or another.

Nobody is likely to change their mind on an issue because their favorite artist pontificates on the subject. At best, their favorite artist might offer them validation for beliefs they all ready hold, and I guess in some cases they might sway somebody that is on the fence, or make somebody think about an issue they have previously not considered that much. And that’s fine. But that’s not what we’re talking about here.

The bottom line is, up and coming artists of today are concerned first and foremost with their careers, and they are going to put out what people want to hear. If they make it far enough up the ladder to where they have the option of creative control of their output, then they have obviously done something right, and they aren’t likely to tamper with success. They are doubtless going to grow creatively,and evolve, which is normal. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they are going to turn their music, their art, into a forum for political punditry or issue advocacy. The minute they do that, they are probably approaching the twilight of their careers, truthfully.

And before that career finaly ends, they will find themselves faced with an ever dwindling audience, as, in all truthfulness, they will have by their own design limited the scope of their appeal to a smaller audience. Now, no sensible group of people are going to get all that worked up about an artist who voices an opinion, however controversial, on any subject, either by word or by deed or by song. But again, that is not what I’m talking about here. And that is most certainly not what Neil Young seems to be talking about. What I am talking about, and what he seems to be talking about, are those artists who would base and revolve their entire careers on it.

I’m talking about the limited scope of artists who devote the entirety of their careers to protest and issue advocacy, or who are thought of as such. I can think of two examples, from the early days of folk and rock. One is Pete Seager. The other is Jonathon Edwards, who in the early seventies had a hit song called “Sunshine”, from what is only one album in what has been described by one reviewer as “the best of a miserable body of work”. Yet, to hear “Sunshine”, it is obvious Edwards was talented as a singer and songwriter, yet despite a pretty voluminous output, this was his one sole hit. And this as much as anything had to do with the way he put himself across, which, to paraphrase the same reviewer, amounted to a sanctimonious preachiness that heaped scorn on anyone who did not agree with the aritsts views.

The same could be probably said for folk artist and icon Pete Seager, who never made it beyond the scope of his chosen genres limited appeal, and who was considered outside that world as self righteous and sanctimonious as they ever came. Yet, to the folk music crowd, he is practically a god. Yet, these are the same people who turned on Bob Dylan, the penultimate protest singer, because he dared to branch out, which offended their sense of folk music purity.

Yet, though they disdained Dylan for this, he achieved a degree of success that went far beyond any of the purist crowd heroes ever has or will achieve. There are aritsts who have a talent that just can not be kept in bounds, and Dylan, like Springsteen, Lennon, and yes, Neil Young, belong in this category. Which makes it all the more surprising that Young would take this incomprehensible position. Does he or anyone seriously believe that he or any of the major artists I have mentioned would have lasted long if they had confined the majority of their output to political punditry or issue advocacy?

I think this is frustration speaking here, and a longing for the long gone, supposed good old days, which no longer exist, and in which artists influence were greatly exagerrated anyway. They were mainly preaching to the crowd to begin with, which in some cases was the reason for their appeal, in that they offerred a degree of validation. But the rock music fan of today is not the monolitihic entity it may have been in the sixties. Now, if an artist criticises Bush, he mght discover a good percentage of his fan base might not really care, or even actually not agree with him. A few of them might even think George Bush is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Therefore, again, why should they limit their audience appeal?

But more importantly, again, the bottom line is, people want to be entertained. They might at the same time appreciate some message songs every now and then-so long as the songs in question are good. But nobody wants to listen to an artist who utiizes the bulk of his or her creative output to sing the fucking editorial pages at them.