Music gives artists a huge influence on their fans. Is it the musician’s duty to spread awareness through their art? Or would it be an artist’s right as a human to ignore that and make no political use of it? Apart from that, how effective could music be, and what role could it play in human development under the global social and political circumstances?
“Do you remember what Darwin says about music? He claims that the power of producing and appreciating it existed among the human race long before the power of speech was arrived at. Perhaps that is why we are so subtly influenced by it. There are vague memories in our souls of those misty centuries when the world was in its childhood.”
That was a quote from the Sherlock Holmes novel “Study in scarlet” by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, explaining the importance of music in our lives, not only in politics. Discussing the political role of music does not mean national or party anthems nor does it mean abusing it to glorify some politician or leader, but rather discussing its role in spreading the good message of the people, for the people all over the world, when needed in demonstrations, revolutions, or simply as anti-war songs.
Music itself could be a non-political product but as a result of consequential logic, it would be hard to ignore the power music has on non-musical matters. Ignoring this power could, thus, turn retrospectively easily into a huge mistake. As important as this instrument is we should also realize that it could only play supportive roles or serve as motivation to start the political research since the lyrics need to be explained before its political message is completely understood by the recipient and cannot in any form contain all the aspects of any political message no matter which genre of music or about which political idea.
Music and politics in modern history
During the Cold War, there was a commonly used term called “The Iron Curtain.” This term described the imagined line between the states of the Eastern and the Western bloc in Europe. In Berlin, these borders were one of the most militarized areas in the world. This area was so strictly monitored that it was not easy to let anyone, or anything, cross it. But one thing always did: music.
The role music played in politics could be easily observed in Eastern Europe by looking at its influence on all the cultures, movements or even ideas through the Cold War. During the 1950s and beginning 60s, one of the most famous countercultures, and perhaps the first of its kind in the Soviet Union, cracked through the surface. Its followers were known as Stilyagi. This early youth movement had it easier than later movements since the Soviet regime had no intention to infiltrate the group during that time, or at least not in the early stages. This counterculture was prominent for listening to Western music, but they were not able to survive the next decade since there were more restrictions against them. The Stilyagi did not disappear without leaving their mark on the Soviet cultural history. The 6th World Festival of Youth and Students was held in Moscow in 1957 promoting music and dance genres, which until then were not so popular in the Soviet Union. This festival was a major advance for cultural liberation and was mainly influential because of the Stilyagi and rock fans. As much hope as this step had sparked, it did not last long since many Eastern countries began arresting people who belonged to this movement, and since then there have been more restrictions than before.
The Beatles’ influence in the Soviet Union was remarkable in fashion and the whole music scene. In the 1960s, a famous term in the East was ‚Bitlovka‘ which meant Collarless Beatles jackets. The Beatles were also the main „motive“ for the expansion of music in the black market, acquired by smuggling copies from the West or recording from Western radio.
On the other side of the Iron Curtain, the political anti-capitalist youth movements of the ’60s were recognizable through special music taste and it was rock music which gained the most popularity among them. In the Eastern bloc, the Soviet 60s „alternative/counter” culture was less politically involved than in the West, nevertheless, music managed to leave its mark in the East during the 60s through the many concerts for liberalization held in Prague during the Prague Spring of 1968.
The influence of music on politics kept rising until the collapse of the Berlin Wall. In the 70s, while trying to contain musical involvement in politics, the Eastern German government even established a „Bureau for rock“. During this time, the musical influence on politics in the East stayed on the rise. Slowly but steadily, an underground rock culture was created which played a significant role in the civil resistance to authority in the Soviet Union and, as stated before, those movements became more peaceful and were less engaged than those in the West during this era, but definitely easy to notice while going through the Eastern political and cultural history. However, that changed during the mid-80s as Soviet authorities started to practically outlaw Rock music. Clubs were closed while implementing heavier censorship on music journalism and during the same time in many Eastern countries punk music started to rise out of dissatisfaction with actions of the authorities which led to the fast end of the period of „musical oppression“. In 1985, during the rise of the Perestroika and the election of Gorbachev, the authorities in the east started to be permissive. So permissive that even Western bands were able to play in rock festivals in the East! This massive change inspired a new slang word, „tusovka“ which meant „Something is happening, some kind of mess“. The permissive relationship between the state and music reached its height after the disaster of Chornobyl when the artists ignored all the attempts from the government to enforce compliance with a series of regulations and paperwork. The state police did not react to that at all neither confiscating instruments nor with police violence. That was unthinkable for the population in the East even a few years ago!
During the few years before the collapse of the Berlin Wall many artists performed their music in West Berlin while pointing the speaker over the wall and the attempts of the authorities in the East caused the music fans to riot chanting „tear down the wall“. Trying to improve their image, the Eastern authorities allowed Bruce Springsteen to hold a concert in East Berlin. A few months later, Erich Honecker resigned, and the Berlin Wall was deconstructed and removed in 1989.
It is possible to write chapters on the influence of music on the political scene, like the previously mentioned students’ revolution in West Germany or even its remarkable role in one of the most significant political events of the 20th century but this brief summary aims to highlight the importance of music in various social and political events of the past.
State censorship and capitalist exploitation
As a part of the freedom of speech, making political music or simple political statements as an artist is not the same all over the world. Some people assume it only depends on the country the artist lives in, which is only partially true. It is rather about where these artists live and which political matters they address.
In classic, old-school dictatorships, one random comment can lead to prison, therefore making a political song which does not fit the criteria of state propaganda would mean risking everything the artists have, including their entity. While in the more developed countries, composing anti-state songs is considered harmless and not affiliated with any consequences unless the artist addresses specific topics which are considered redlines in these “democracies”. This comparison aims to explain an important thought about freedom in the music industry, we must keep in mind we do not have the ultimate freedom of art or speech in any country of the world. We rather have dictatorships with general censorship on everything inside its borders, including music, but with no serious effect on the general public opinion in the world viewed as a whole and states with rather specific censorship for topics which, through deliberate limited media coverage and professional way of delivering convincing lies, are made interesting only to a limited number of the population including the artists. These governments with targeted and “professional” censorship are the main factor in shaping international opinion on any matter through media-stimulated ignorance and Western-constructed public lack of interest.
Another question that comes to mind when arguing about producing more revolutionary and anti-establishment content in the music industry is, how helpful and honest could the revolutionary content be while going through the reactionary structure of the music industry?
The music industry has managed to have some sort of monopoly over power limited to a specific spectrum of artists. The rise of social media was the hope to strengthen independent artists but it caused big companies using it to gain more control over the industry and spread capitalist values among young artists who are often treated as properties by their companies. They are so exploited that they also start focusing more on making music on time to sell the most copies they could which consequently would have a negative effect on their creativity. These very depressive and capitalist work conditions multiple musicians suffer from could also cause them to want to rebel and could have a positive effect on their progressive creativity being influenced by the situation they live in and not only imagine or fear. But despite that, the question remains, how sinful and genuine could the songs coming out of such capitalist structures be?
Political or controversial? Right or Responsibility?
Plenty of musicians or artists answer the questions about their opinions on political topics with “We are not a political Band,” “Politics is personal” and “We are only about music!” etc. Which is, in the case of many artists, an understandable point of view and could have convincing reasons. Nevertheless, this “understandable” way of thinking would turn into hypocrisy when applied exclusively to specific controversial matters.
Politics can be defined in multiple ways, for example, as “The activities or affairs engaged in by a government, politician, or political party.” according to this definition or any other reliable one, asking about songs made about “less controversial” events, like the fall of the Berlin-Wall for instance, should be political while numerous artists who avoid answering the tough questions, about topics, including the genocide committed by Israel against the Palestinians, shed tears when listening to songs about other political matters which are less controversial than this one. This selective empathy tells us that not being politically involved and claiming to make music regardless of political views are just answers some artists use to avoid giving statements about matters that would eventually cost them fans and money.
When a band treats a genocide against an oppressed people like the Palestinians as a political matter in which they do not want to get involved, because they are “non-political” bands, while authoring poems about the emotions after the fall of the Berlin-Wall turn the tolerated idea of being “non-political artists” into nothing but hypocrisy. Politics contains not only the non-controversial simple matters but also all the subjects which fit any of the reliable definitions of the term. Explaining and understanding the difference between the political and the controversial would be a necessity for any attempt to fairly analyze the relation between the art, the artist, and the political events.
When it comes to music it would be difficult to answer any question with a simple yes or no answer associated with an explanation. Music in its essence is a very chaotic field which leads in all of its aspects to a labyrinth of debates that is why a question about whether music in general is more of a right for the artist or rather a responsibility, could only be answered through asking more questions and leaving them open for the reader to explore.
To decide between right and responsibility is not easy because then we have to choose between the logical aspects and personal priorities. The main contradiction in this matter is having to choose between the right to expression and the responsibility to the audience.
Artists, like all people, deserve to have complete freedom of speech but also being a role model for the youth and having a huge influence on many people forms a responsibility which should not be underestimated. One wrong statement by a celebrity could start a civil riot. Having mentioned these aspects, could we still decide whether the way artists deliver their music and which content they support or ignore belongs to their right of expression or rather to their professional and social responsibility?
While discussing the artists’ rights and responsibilities we should also not be ignorant about our own. Questioning the morals of the artists solely according to their silence on a specific topic could be the same as the immorality we are trying to face.
Art is a complex field and, unfortunately, the keys to success in this field are not only talent and hard work but also luck. That is why it is not easy for countless talented musicians, despite putting their heart and soul into their art, to even pay their rent. Trying to condemn those artists for their unwillingness to sacrifice their bread and butter in the fight against capitalism and injustice, is as capitalist and unjust as one could imagine, and it is plainly fighting against the victim of the corrupt system instead of fighting against the system itself.
Another aspect to keep in mind, especially for Western antifascists, is not to blame artists living under brutal dictatorships for not rising against the despicable systems with their music, because the freedom of speech in the West, as flawed and corrupt as it is, is still more developed in matters similar to human rights issues than in other countries, and we are not here to defend the western sponsors of imperialism, who are mostly responsible for putting the dictators of lower-income countries in power, but rather demonstrating facts.
Revolutionary. Neutral. Reactionary
This article might be considered chaotic. But as music itself, it was intentionally chaotic with the goal of raising questions and addressing the matter in a way that encourages debate. Even though we all ask questions expecting answers and hoping to satisfy our curiosity, sometimes the best we could ever get is a logical opinion, especially when discussing sentimental subjects like music and art. Nevertheless, regardless of how much debate such matters tolerate, we should always be able to reach for the reliable information and consider the red lines which are set by our humanity and sense for what is right and what is wrong. How to be pragmatic and understanding, and when we lose our sight and become ignorant.
By Nour Kanj and Haya Kanj
Wird geladen ...
