Wait, did I say “raise”? What I meant was “lower beyond any and all possible expectations”.
Today two bands added themselves to the “Shut Up And Play” list, previously graced by such luminaries as Coldplay, The Dixie Chix, Bon Jovi, Bruce Springsteen and the Beastie Boys.
First off, we’ve got that old crowd favorite, the Rolling Stones. Since no one is offended, let alone shocked by Mick Jagger’s aging hipster routine any more, I guess Mick and the boys need to stir the political pot in order to gin up any interest in their forthcoming album and its accompanying tour:
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) – The Rolling Stones, not exactly a band at the forefront of rock ‘n’ roll activism, are taking aim at the American right with a new song on their upcoming album, according to Newsweek magazine.
The track, “Sweet Neo Con,” boasts the line, “You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite/You call yourself a patriot, well I think you’re full of s—,” according to the weekly newsmagazine.
“It is direct,” singer Mick Jagger was quoted as saying, adding that his collaborator, Keith Richards, was “a bit worried” about a backlash because the guitarist lives in the United States and Jagger does not.
In an interview to be broadcast Wednesday on syndicated TV show Extra, Jagger said the song was not aimed at anyone specifically, such as President Bush.
That sounds like a real party song. Wuzzadem offers us a preview of the Stones’ tour. Looks like it’ll be big with the kiddies.
Next up is a band I’ve never heard of (not that I’m surprised) called Kids Against Combs. They’re described as “indie agit-popsters”, which I imagine you can take to mean whatever you’d like. They were hard at work on an album that drew its title from Sean Hannity’s home phone number when mean old Hannity sic’d his lawyers on those lovable scamps who only wanted to encourage verbal harassment of a public figure whose views they categorically disagree with. Not to be outdone, Kids Against Combs took the daring step of renaming their album from Sean Hannity (631) 673-[XXXX] (numbers removed for the phone company’s sake as Hannity has apparently had his home number changed) to The Album Formerly Known As Sean Hannity’s Phone Number … Currently Sean Hannity Is a Democracy Subverting [Feminine Hygeine Product Component].
Ahhh, can you smell the free flow of honest, good-spirited debate? Can you smell the emotional maturity?
Fortunately I didn’t stand in line to buy tickets for the Stones’ scheduled local stadium show.
But I don’t even want to start thinking about all the bands I enjoy with whom I actually disagree. I think that would leave me in an eerily quiet universe.
That’s why they’re on the “Shut Up And Play” list. I don’t listen to them for insightful political and cultural criticism just as I don’t wait for Alan Greenspan to whip out a Fender Stratocaster and wail off a mean blues riff.
Bop your head to their tunes, raise your “boos” to their drivel. Maybe someday they’ll figure out that people are paying to hear music, not the rantings of high school dropouts with musical talent out the yin-yang and a penchant for recreational drugs.
Where can I view the full list of bands that need to shut up and play?
I’d like to make sure Toby Keith and Charlie Daniels are on it.
Well, Muddro, I don’t know about an official list, but feel free to draft a corresponding “Shut Up And Play” list for your side of the intellectual aisle.
However, it should be plain to you that the reason that the SUAP list is so heavily populated by lefties is that the entertainment industry is dominated by people of a similar intellectual/political bent, so merely by playing the averages you’re going to end up with far more Lefties in need of a good tongue-lashing than Righties. Plus, no one in the trade rags seems to listen to, let alone give the time of day to Right-leaning artists and actors.
But by all means, if it’s that big of an issue to you, add Charlie Daniels and Toby Keith to your list.
“Well, Muddro, I don’t know about an official list, but feel free to draft a corresponding “Shut Up And Play” list for your side of the intellectual aisle.”
I don’t have a side, and I think the practice of choosing sides is an anti-intellectual practice. I asked the question so I could determine whether you are actually making a list, and whether you are including only the artists you disagreed with. Since your approach is biased – by your admission – there is no reason for intelligent people to take you seriously.
“However, it should be plain to you that the reason that the SUAP list is so heavily populated by lefties is that the entertainment industry is dominated by people of a similar intellectual/political bent,”
More art = more open to new ideas = more liberal (see definition of liberal in your dictionary). The reason the industry is “dominated” by liberals is because they are artists and thats what they share in common. The industry is far from dominated by liberals. Those who speak their minds are usually leftist activists (of which there are many).
I have never – ever – seen real criteria that qualify people to speak about politics. Never. Post some studies, some reports, whatever – it doesn’t matter. Political people will post only what suits their point of view, anyway. And that is the point – no one is any more qualified to discuss politics than anyone else, so what you’re really saying here is “i dont like what you said, so shut the f*** up.”
No doubt you see these artists raising these issues as “whining.” You probably don’t see what you do as whining, though it is essentially the same practice. And if these things are true, that makes you a hypocrite – reason #2 not to take you seriously.
“so merely by playing the averages you’re going to end up with far more Lefties in need of a good tongue-lashing than Righties.”
This is like the liberal media myth. I’m almost 100% certain that the people who actually make the decisions about what gets released and played are probably conservatives. If not, then somehow these liberals have gotten the Republican government to play ball with them in granting whatever powers are needed for them to arrest people via invasions of their privacy.
I suppose its possible they just saw the government increasing its own power to invade privacy and jumped on the bandwagon…
“Plus, no one in the trade rags seems to listen to, let alone give the time of day to Right-leaning artists and actors.”
They’re not terribly talented. And they tend to inhabit a genre of music where the creativity level is so stifled that only the straight pop genre can outdo the stagnation. These artists chose their path.
“But by all means, if it’s that big of an issue to you, add Charlie Daniels and Toby Keith to your list.”
I don’t have such a list, because that would be peurile and ignorant. If you love America and the rights we stand for, you shouldn’t feel an obsessive need to direct other people on how to use the rights we grant to them. Especially merely because you are a crybaby who didn’t agree with their choices.
Watch the language. I’ve taken the liberty of editing your comment. Anything further on that order will signal to me that you have no interest in continuing the discussion, so keep it clean.
That said, response to follow.
Apologies for the delay in posting a response – an OC3 connecting NYC and Philly was apparently severed some time this afternoon and thus my ‘net access has been exceedingly slow, if not entirely out at points.
I don’t have a side, and I think the practice of choosing sides is an anti-intellectual practice.
I don’t believe that for a second.
I asked the question so I could determine whether you are actually making a list, and whether you are including only the artists you disagreed with. Since your approach is biased – by your admission – there is no reason for intelligent people to take you seriously.
My verbiage was drawn from two sources: Laura Ingraham’s recent book, Shut Up and Sing and Frank Zappa’s three volume compilation Shut Up N’ Play Yer Guitar. I am not sure whether Ingraham actually ripped the title of her book from Zappa or whether she was/is even aware of his existence. It’s immaterial. The principle is the same.
More art = more open to new ideas = more liberal (see definition of liberal in your dictionary). The reason the industry is “dominated” by liberals is because they are artists and thats what they share in common. The industry is far from dominated by liberals. Those who speak their minds are usually leftist activists (of which there are many).
Note: I clearly said “lefties” and did not refer to “liberals”. You are attempting to play a cute word game by conflating the modern political definition of “liberal” with the classical definition.
What evidence do you offer to refute the notion that the entertainment industry is dominated by leftists? By your own admission, you conflate “artist” to mean “liberal”.
I have never – ever – seen real criteria that qualify people to speak about politics. Never. Post some studies, some reports, whatever – it doesn’t matter. Political people will post only what suits their point of view, anyway. And that is the point – no one is any more qualified to discuss politics than anyone else, so what you’re really saying here is “i dont like what you said, so shut the f*** up.”
I’m saying no such thing. I’m saying that people aren’t paying Mick Jagger to pontificate, be it in spoken word, print or song, they are paying him to entertain them. If he wishes to allow his audience to become further self-selecting by alienating a considerable portion of the United States’ population, so be it. I’m saying that, from my perspective, Jagger has proved himself to be a buffoon of the first order and thus worthy of completely ignoring. The fact that he and his band mates haven’t produced a decent song since the late ’70’s makes the decision to ignore/boycott them even easier.
No doubt you see these artists raising these issues as “whining.” You probably don’t see what you do as whining, though it is essentially the same practice. And if these things are true, that makes you a hypocrite – reason #2 not to take you seriously.
I blog as a hobby. I pay for my hosting myself, I post no ads, I take in no revenue. I do it as a way to amuse myself and hopefully others will find it amusing as well. If not, c’est la vie. I’m still out the hosting dollars each and every month either way. If you want to view it as “whining”, so be it.
I don’t see them as whining, I see them as sullying their “art”. The vast majority of their fans will go to shows, buy CDs, etc. in order to be entertained, not annoyed by petty pontification. It’s the exact same problem that plagued the Beastie Boys’ last album.
They have every right to say whatever they want, just as I have every right to heckle from the gallery and shout “Shut Up and Sing!” They have the freedom to make their records, I have the freedom to not buy them.
This is like the liberal media myth. I’m almost 100% certain that the people who actually make the decisions about what gets released and played are probably conservatives. If not, then somehow these liberals have gotten the Republican government to play ball with them in granting whatever powers are needed for them to arrest people via invasions of their privacy.
Not quite sure what you’re referring to here – which invasions of privacy? Are you speaking of the idiotic RIAA/MPAA policies of prosecuting their customer base? I’m right with you on that one – the DMCA is one of the worst pieces of law ever passed by Congress, and that’s saying a lot.
As to who’s running the shows and what their ideologies are, please explain to me why, if the vast majority of those types are conservative, the TV/Movie/Music industry donated at a 69%-31% (Dems/Repubs) rate in this last election? The donations to Congress were along those lines as well. In this last election cycle, the top 20 recipients of Entertainment dollars consist of 18 Democrats and 2 Republicans. I fail to see how any of this indicates a Rightward leaning in the upper echelons of the Entertainment Industry.
I suppose its possible they just saw the government increasing its own power to invade privacy and jumped on the bandwagon…
Once again, what are you referring to here?
They’re not terribly talented. And they tend to inhabit a genre of music where the creativity level is so stifled that only the straight pop genre can outdo the stagnation. These artists chose their path.
I’ll not defend Keith as anything more than a purveyor of pop country pap and I’ve never been a big Charlie Daniels fan. That being said, I’ll gladly take trite pop-y country over “creative” musical diatribes any time. To each his own – pontification set to a beat is a big musical turn off for me.
I don’t have such a list, because that would be peurile[sic] and ignorant. If you love America and the rights we stand for, you shouldn’t feel an obsessive need to direct other people on how to use the rights we grant to them. Especially merely because you are a crybaby who didn’t agree with their choices.
I’m not directing them to act in any fashion other than that which they feel is best for their careers. However, I retain my right to think they’re idiots to throw away a reputation and a sizable portion of their audience in order to spew what I view as despicable drivel. They’re welcome to their opinions, just not on my CD player/MP3 player/radio.
I think you’re both missing the point. Mick Jagger didn’t fill out an application to entertain me, so “shut up and play” isn’t in his job description. In other words, he doesn’t need to tailor his recordings to whether or not I think he’s qualified as a political scientist. Anyone who thinks artists (including Toby Kieth) should shut up and get back to being our personal jukebox is brainless at best. If you think music (or any art form, for that matter) is just for your entertainment, and should never have a social conscience, please stop using my valuable oxygen. It cuts both ways, though. People who think fun pop songs that have nothing to do with politics are pointless are also full of it. The POINT is, the artist records what is on his or her mind, and if I like it, I buy it. I venomously despise Britney Spears, but she brings pleasure to others. For that, she should keep playing as long as someone out there is buying it. We would all be a lot worse off without the protest songs Bob Dylan wrote throughout his career, and personally, “Chatahoochee” by Alan Jackson makes me smile. Just because Tom Waits is my idol doesn’t mean Clint Black doesn’t have a reason to record. If you don’t like what Bruce Springsteen has to say, don’t buy his records. But please, please, don’t be such a baby. You’re doing a favor to all the artists whose opinions you deem so irrelevant by responding to them. I’m doing you and your lonely little blog an even bigger favor by participating. You’re welcome.
Thanks for dropping by, Avi. I’m glad I could provide you with the bandwidth and the publishing platform to make your opinions known. Fortunately, typing tends to be a far less strenuous activity than verbally bloviating, so I’ve also saved you some of your precious oxygen. You’re welcome.
Maybe I haven’t made myself clear enough for you: my list ultimately affects no one but myself (well, and the bands that lose out on a single sale because they manage to sufficiently tick me off, so much so that I refuse to buy their albums).
Musicians are free to make whatever they wish of their art form, I’m free to pay attention or ignore them as I see fit. In the Stones’ case, they’ve now made the “I shall ignore them in perpetuity, at least until they show evidence that they’ve completed their recto-cranial impaction reversal surgery” list.
The Kids Against Combs story is a different matter entirely. Their initial album title fairly clearly constituted incitement to harassment, IMNSHO. That sort of thing shouldn’t be allowed. Their second title, while ultimately childish and immature is at least within the bounds of the law. If they were to pursue the harassment angle, I’d fully support Hannity suing them into oblivion.
Ultimately, it’s a “tree falling in the woods” situation: If the Stones whine about neocons in the form of a song and no one comes to hear them, etc.
Once again, thanks for stopping by.
(Amusing aside: The replacement for “Hannity” suggested by the spellchecker was “annuity”. Heh.)
Well,
I have become a big fan of that band you have never heard of, AKA Kids Against Combs. Your coverage of them saddens me.
Couldn’t you get the joke in the album title? Seriously, the band uses Democracy Subverting and then dips down to a product of 5th grade name calling and you can’t catch on to that? Sad.
Well, I imagine you’d be one of those people glad to read about this:
Here:
hardcoremusic.biz/main/content/view/158/2/
and here:
theshatteredmonkey.com/news/
Evan:
I got the “joke” – it’s just that it wasn’t particularly funny, especially in its initial incarnation. Incitement to harrassment is no laughing matter and, no matter which way you view it, that’s precisely what Kids Against Combs was attempting with their intial album title.
Well Doug,
I was not implying about what KAC initially did, I was referring to their new title, which has nothing to do with anything besides speaking the truth about that blowhard [idiot]. Seriously, Hannity is a “wolf in sheep’s clothing.” He wants Americans to surrender their rights at all costs that are of benefit to his mighty Bush leader.
As for the initial KAC title, I personally think that Seany is one of the few people out there that is deserving of what came his way. The man has simply gone too far for too long w/ the crap he pulls on his radio show. All that KAC did was give the guy a very needed reality check.
The music that lies inside that KAC album reveals the truths about today’s America and what Degal has to say is exactly how I feel about the state of our country as well.
I am so glad that band did what they did. I know you hate r-n-r Doug, but it’s about time someone started using music as a political forum again.
Doug, when the smoke clears, it will be the music that’s most remembered, not Hannity.
1. Mind the language, if you please. I try to keep a clean site, although I may fall behind at times. I’ve taken the liberty of editing your comment for content.
2. A small question: r-n-r? To what are you referring?
3. A larger question: what “crap” do you speak of on Hannity’s radio program? And what evidence do you offer that he wishes for anyone to surrender their rights, to Bush or otherwise?
I just wrote and extensive reply only to have it be followed by a server error. It kinda felt like a Hannity radio trick.
The simple answer is r-n-r is rock ‘n roll.
As for Seany, well, I must do that one again some time in the near future.