Do You Approve of Entertainers Becoming Politicized?

Well, "approve" actually, Roger, which is slightly stronger than "appreciate" ... the connotation between "approval" and "right" is not so far-fetched ... after all, if you say: "i dont appreciate this", then you already express considering your reaction to it to be your own problem/opinion, whereas if you say "i don't approve of this", you're expressing that you think someone shouldn't be doing it ...

OK, so I'm anal

edgarblythe- I think that I mentioned somewhere in the thread that there are certain singers where their stock in trade is political commentary, and a ticket buyer would expect political remarks. I have no problem. Yer gets what yer pay for.

FYI- I happen to like Bob Dylan and Buffy St. Marie, and don't care much for Ahnold or Merle Haggard.

I have no problem with it, but I do prefer if it's worked into the performance, rather than just a rant. I used to go see a blues band called The Phantoms frequently. At one concert, they were playing a song, if memory serves, it was called "Why'd You Lie", a typical blues commentary on a relationship gone bad, but in the middle, the singer did some improv spoken word about the immigration issues in Canada and the US, and ended with the statement "except for the native Canadians and Americans, we're all immigrants." Then he went into a seriously sweet harmonica solo. I thought that was pretty cool.

I had no idea Belafonte was into politics when I became a fan. I was initially attracted by the novelty songs he sang, such as Mama Look A Boo-Boo and Day-O. When he appeared with Dr King and recorded songs like The Back of the Bus I was absolutely thrilled. I guess I just enjoy the mixing of politics with entertainment. I recall old time politicians were entertainers as well as candidates. Ever read David Crocket's and Lincoln's speaches?

Cav- I think that you hit the nail on the head. After I wrote this thread, and got reactions from people, I tried to figure out why I was so pissed off by what happned in Vegas. Thinking about it some more, I realized that many entertainers have politics worked into their acts, and people expect it of them.

It is where it comes out of left field, where it has nothing to do with the act, that I find so offensive. A person spends good money for entertainment. Unless there is an expectation that politics is included in the price of admission, if politics is a part of the entertainer's act, IMO, a person's personal views need to be kept as part of his personal life, and not shared with the audience.

I am rather mystified about the notion of our approval--everyone has the potential to become "politicized." Entertainers are no different in that regard. If their political activities or expressed views ruin their careers, or cause them problems in their careers, than it is noteworthy that they risk far more than the most of us for simply expressing their opinions. Sure they have a bully pulpit--they also risk more than you or i.

<shrugs> Artists express themselves. Thats what they're supposed to do. If they feel sad, they might sing some sad love songs instead of the happy-go-lucky pop songs you went to the concert for. If they happen to feel bold, they might suddenly do one song in a completely different style than what you're used to. And if they got upset about what they saw on the telly, they'll say something about that. They're musicians, they're artists, their job description is to express themselves, and we decide whether we like what we hear or not.

Setanta- No disagreement here. How would YOU feel if you went to a concert of a person whose work had heretofore been apolitical, and all of a sudden he/she is coming out with strong political comment during the performance?

Hard to say, Boss, i don't like crowds, and so avoid this type of event. Were i in the situation, my response would be conditioned by how long they held forth, and my boredom threshhold. I've walked out of concerts just because the show sucked, such as Jefferson Starship, so likely, if they droned on and on, i'd leave. Which has nothing to do with their right to speak out, or the problems that can create for them.

By the way, as an example of this, I used to like Mel Gibson. I don't like him much anymore. I don't think he should have kept his convictions to himself, I just don't like his convictions much, nor the manner in which he expresses them. So I'm less likely to see one of his movies in the future.

<shrugs>

Conversely, I always liked Janeane Garafolo (sp?) but not a ton -- she wasn't on my radar much. I really like how she has spoken out on a lot of things, though -- her political activism makes me like her more.

<shrugs again>

Strange soz, I had the same reaction to Mel. Loved his earlier movies because I didn't know much about him personally. Now that I hear him speaking his opinions, I am less charmed.

If a celebrity is KNOWN for speaking their views, I am likely to accept these facts without moaning. But when a celebrity suddenly starts spouting about this and that, I tend to be turned off. And this is even those whose views I AGREE with!

I think it depends on attitude more than anything else. I tend to agree with Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon's opinions, but they have this holier-than-thou thing going on that annoys me. With anyone, if it seems like they're just trying to add depth to their image or to be Taken Seriously, it annoys me. But that's all separate from the expression of political views per se.

ok. Let me clarify this in my own mind. Many people write and perform songs of protest. You go to one of these concerts and expect some message, political or otherwise, to be the motif of the moment. That's probably the reason they draw a certain audience. You also expect hecklers to be there, and take it all with a grain of some condiment or the other, unless it turns violent.

You go to hear Linda. (not that I would unless she performed her jazz collection). You're really going to see and be seen, have some drinks, and get down to whatever music turns you on. Then, without a clue, it becomes a musical political rally. Frankly, I would be alarmed as I would if someone suddenly shouted "Fire"! It's called safety. Free speech really has nothing to do with it. She should have considered that before dedicating her songs, etc.

I didn't see The Passion, nor will I see Moore's 9/11, because I know how the media can stir the blood. So, I must agree with Phoenix in that I would not like it, nor appreciate it. (let's not quibble or word choice) It has nothing...I mean nothing to do with the money, either.

When I would go to see Linda (agreed, Letty: I would only go for Jazz collection, too :wink: ), and I had heard that she did this 'political speech' on all the events of her tour before - I would wonder, why she stopped that, only because I was in the audience

Walter, She'd probably look right at you and sing every song for your benefit, and then your lovely wife would be pissed, so you'd be in trouble no matter what.

If it was new for LInda to push her politics I would understand the outrage a little.

Richard Wagner was a raving anti-semitist who published several really awful pamphlets. It hasn't reduced my love for his operas one bit.

Cat Stevens seems to have turned into a born-again islamist, judging by the fact that he even approved of Khomeini's Fatwah against Salman Rushdie. I still like Cat Stevens' songs.

Ayn Rand was a third-class novelist who wrote in exactly the same horrible good-versus-evil style that makes the "official" literature of Stalinist Russia such a pain to read. But her extremely libertarian politics are just a more radical version of my politics; I agree with most of it. That didn't change my aversion to her novels either. (I only read her two most famous ones though, "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged". So it's theoretically possible I missed out on the gems.)

There are other artists whose art I think differently of than their politics, but those three are enough to make my point. It seems like on both sides of the spectrum, my answer to Phoenix's question is "I don't care". And I disagree that entertainers are "becoming" politicized. Some artists have always been opinionated about their politics, just as some non-artists have always been.

Thomas brings up an interesting point, which may have something to do with this "becoming" business -- the cult of personality, what that means. Mel Gibson sells not only his pure acting skills, such as they are, but himself. Who he is supposed to be, his personality. If I don't like that personality, it impacts how I view his craft -- in this case, acting. (He looks awfully cute in the video advertisements for "What Women Want", but I no longer find him attractive and don't want to see the movie.)

Music, especially music without lyrics, especially music performed by a large orchestra, can be more effectively separated from the personality of the person who created it, IMO. Large themes like a troubled soul, playfulness, etc. come out, to be sure, but nothing so specific as anti-semitism is inherent in the music... I don't think.

Thomas and I had this discussion re: Woody Allen a while back, I believe, he's another one I plain don't like because of his extra-artistic activities, especially since his persona has been so autobiographical.

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. Re: Linda Ronstadt, I very much agree with edgar.

If entertainers couldn't dabble in politics we'd have few politicians.