That's pretty unfair of you to ask that, as if OP suggested otherwise. I too think this situation reeks of intentionally manufactured controversy. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the...
With that said do you think artists should not be able to have a political opinion? Or just not express it in their art?
That's pretty unfair of you to ask that, as if OP suggested otherwise. I too think this situation reeks of intentionally manufactured controversy. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the message in the song, it's entirely predictable it would be seen as controversial and some stations would choose not to play it (especially those that rely on ad$). So for the band to then act surprised and aghast when it inevitably doesn't receive much airtime is asinine IMO.
Artists should absolutely be able to have political opinions, and be able to express it in their art. That's very important. Presenters of that art (radio hosts, art exhibits, or even storefronts)...
Artists should absolutely be able to have political opinions, and be able to express it in their art. That's very important.
Presenters of that art (radio hosts, art exhibits, or even storefronts) also have the choice to host that art or not. There's nothing that says they must.
I don't think the original commenter (OC?) suggested that the song was written as a ploy. I too think this smells of a ploy to create controversy by sauying "some stations that will remain unnamed...
I don't think the original commenter (OC?) suggested that the song was written as a ploy. I too think this smells of a ploy to create controversy by sauying "some stations that will remain unnamed refuse to play our song" not that the song was written to create this situation. I personally feel that if radio stations truly wont play their song and they are upset enough to go public about it, they should also be willing to name the stations. I don't understand what they gain other than popularity via articles like this by saying people won't play their music but not saying who won't. What's the point?
I'm no stranger to indie music, but I don't expect to hear The Mountain Goats on my local radio, so I'm not sure how this band's music not being played automatically makes it a controversy. The...
I'm no stranger to indie music, but I don't expect to hear The Mountain Goats on my local radio, so I'm not sure how this band's music not being played automatically makes it a controversy. The article is low on details and rather vague about who exactly is refusing to play them, so I don't think it's too crazy to think it could just be a publicity stunt. By the label's own admission radio stations have "never fully embraced the band" which to me just means there's generally a lack of interest in playing their music.
Artists can have political opinions. I'm a huge fan of System of a Down, which was incredibly vocal and controversial during the late Clinton years and Bush years. I'm all for it, but I also think this smells of a "the album critics don't want you to hear! WHOA COOL" marketing stunt.
They do sort of assert that Republicans eat human flesh... which is kinda drastic and IMO pretty pointless. But. I don't in anyway think they went too far. You know you I think go too far? The...
Did the band go to far in their lyrics?
They do sort of assert that Republicans eat human flesh... which is kinda drastic and IMO pretty pointless. But. I don't in anyway think they went too far.
You know you I think go too far? The people who say immigrants and legal asylum seekers are animals who should be put down at the border. The people who erase trans people. The people who preach hate and fuel acts of violence against political enemies.
And I think plenty of young republicans fit this mold. So, in some ways I think the lyrical content is (taken as an artistic expression or partisan hyperbole) is totally warranted.
What's more, the singer Jana Hunter identifies non-binary/gender-fluid and therefor very much in the (potentially literal) cross hairs of those who would do violence against them. Given that fact I think this sort of lyrics are totally within the realm of acceptable speech given the fact their twitter is probably getting blown up with death threats at this very moment.
I mean...if you feel like a victim you're going to use "victimized" language. No great irony there, if you ask me. I don't see why any liberal city centers would have a problem playing the song...
I mean...if you feel like a victim you're going to use "victimized" language. No great irony there, if you ask me.
I don't see why any liberal city centers would have a problem playing the song and I don't see what's to be gained by playing it in a conservative bastion. Certainly, no Republican is going to listen to this and think "Wow, maybe I should change my ways."
Basically, if you make a polarizing song expect to get..polarized? Weird, though, as this is a fairly niche band probably only being played on left-leaning college radio stations. Hard for me to imagine many refusing to play the song, which I guess is why the letter only referred to a "handful."
Hmm...I guess my problem is that it seems to imply anyone left-leaning holds exclusive rights to feeling "victimized." Or, worse yet, that anyone left-leaning is automatically a victim. Or...
Hmm...I guess my problem is that it seems to imply anyone left-leaning holds exclusive rights to feeling "victimized." Or, worse yet, that anyone left-leaning is automatically a victim. Or something. Maybe.
Anyway, it's still strange to me that those stations won't play the song. Rage Against the Machine had much more confrontational music being played on major airwaves for a good 7 years while they were active. Either that was a benefit of being backed by a major label, radio stations were more brave, or...certain people neglected the message because it was just angry, heavy rock music to them (e.g. Paul Ryan..ugh..).
The answer is probably "most stations" since I've never heard of these guys. I live in a city that has an indie public radio station in it. My wife listens to it all the time. I would have heard...
The answer is probably "most stations" since I've never heard of these guys. I live in a city that has an indie public radio station in it. My wife listens to it all the time. I would have heard of these guys if they were any good.
"Small band drums up controversy for cheap exposure...more at 11."
That's pretty unfair of you to ask that, as if OP suggested otherwise. I too think this situation reeks of intentionally manufactured controversy. Regardless of whether or not I agree with the message in the song, it's entirely predictable it would be seen as controversial and some stations would choose not to play it (especially those that rely on ad$). So for the band to then act surprised and aghast when it inevitably doesn't receive much airtime is asinine IMO.
Artists should absolutely be able to have political opinions, and be able to express it in their art. That's very important.
Presenters of that art (radio hosts, art exhibits, or even storefronts) also have the choice to host that art or not. There's nothing that says they must.
I don't think the original commenter (OC?) suggested that the song was written as a ploy. I too think this smells of a ploy to create controversy by sauying "some stations that will remain unnamed refuse to play our song" not that the song was written to create this situation. I personally feel that if radio stations truly wont play their song and they are upset enough to go public about it, they should also be willing to name the stations. I don't understand what they gain other than popularity via articles like this by saying people won't play their music but not saying who won't. What's the point?
I'm no stranger to indie music, but I don't expect to hear The Mountain Goats on my local radio, so I'm not sure how this band's music not being played automatically makes it a controversy. The article is low on details and rather vague about who exactly is refusing to play them, so I don't think it's too crazy to think it could just be a publicity stunt. By the label's own admission radio stations have "never fully embraced the band" which to me just means there's generally a lack of interest in playing their music.
Artists can have political opinions. I'm a huge fan of System of a Down, which was incredibly vocal and controversial during the late Clinton years and Bush years. I'm all for it, but I also think this smells of a "the album critics don't want you to hear! WHOA COOL" marketing stunt.
They do sort of assert that Republicans eat human flesh... which is kinda drastic and IMO pretty pointless. But. I don't in anyway think they went too far.
You know you I think go too far? The people who say immigrants and legal asylum seekers are animals who should be put down at the border. The people who erase trans people. The people who preach hate and fuel acts of violence against political enemies.
And I think plenty of young republicans fit this mold. So, in some ways I think the lyrical content is (taken as an artistic expression or partisan hyperbole) is totally warranted.
What's more, the singer Jana Hunter identifies non-binary/gender-fluid and therefor very much in the (potentially literal) cross hairs of those who would do violence against them. Given that fact I think this sort of lyrics are totally within the realm of acceptable speech given the fact their twitter is probably getting blown up with death threats at this very moment.
I mean...if you feel like a victim you're going to use "victimized" language. No great irony there, if you ask me.
I don't see why any liberal city centers would have a problem playing the song and I don't see what's to be gained by playing it in a conservative bastion. Certainly, no Republican is going to listen to this and think "Wow, maybe I should change my ways."
Basically, if you make a polarizing song expect to get..polarized? Weird, though, as this is a fairly niche band probably only being played on left-leaning college radio stations. Hard for me to imagine many refusing to play the song, which I guess is why the letter only referred to a "handful."
Hmm...I guess my problem is that it seems to imply anyone left-leaning holds exclusive rights to feeling "victimized." Or, worse yet, that anyone left-leaning is automatically a victim. Or something. Maybe.
Anyway, it's still strange to me that those stations won't play the song. Rage Against the Machine had much more confrontational music being played on major airwaves for a good 7 years while they were active. Either that was a benefit of being backed by a major label, radio stations were more brave, or...certain people neglected the message because it was just angry, heavy rock music to them (e.g. Paul Ryan..ugh..).
I don't think this article makes much sense without listing the stations that don't want to play the song.
The answer is probably "most stations" since I've never heard of these guys. I live in a city that has an indie public radio station in it. My wife listens to it all the time. I would have heard of these guys if they were any good.