From: ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman)
Newsgroups: rec.music.misc,alt.rock-n-roll
Subject: Re: Pearl Jam on SNL
Keywords: Pearl Jam
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:24:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: cbnews.1992Apr15.192434.20454
Organization: AT&T

In article <1992Apr15.164807.10394@rice.edu> jeremyl@screech.owlnet.rice.edu (Jeremy Lyn Hart) writes:
>In article <1992Apr13.175805.10687@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ajw@cbnews.cb.att.com (andrew.j.whitman) writes:
>
>> And just what is accomplished?  A writer of self-proclaimed "socially
>> important songs" gets a national soapbox from which to spout his views.
>> All this proves is that Eddie Vedder has his opinions.  So what?  So do I, 
>> and so do the other two hundred and fifty million people in the country.  
>> What makes you think that someone in the realm of rock music - a domain 
>> hardly known for its clear thinking and intellectual acumen - should be 
>> given a forum to mouth political slogans?
>
>Music has always been a public forum, and always WILL be a public forum -
>period.  Granted, not all musicians do this, but many these days do use
>their music and their performances to spread political views - look at
>Sinead O'Connor, U2, Sting, Queensryche...the list goes on.  How much of
>an outrage is there if Sting decides he wants to support saving the rain
>forests, Mr. Whitman?  Damn little that I've seen.  Eddie Vedder does have
>political views - the songs, like it or not, sometimes deal with unpleasant
>"real world" things.  The music is just a medium for talking about them.
>And as for rock music "hardly known for its clear thinking and intellectual
>acumen," where do YOU live?  Look at my little "slice" of bands above - I,
>and many other people, consider at least some of these artists to be fairly
>intelligent and clear-headed, and most, if not all, are *rock* musicians.
>How about Rush?  Pink Floyd?  Paul Simon?  Metallica (and yes, they DO
>have fairly intelligent lyrics and ideas - these guys are not imbeciles)?
>We've already had the "most-intelligent-lyrics" discussion, I believe...

Amazingly enough, I agree with everything you've said.  Musicians 
certainly have political views, and they're certainly entitled to
express them in their music.  In fact, I tend to view such music
pretty highly, and find it far more involving that the usual
teenage angst.  As entertainment (albeit thought-provoking
entertainment) it's great.  But I don't give it the same weight
of importance as, say, a speech that is trying to convince me how
to vote.  Song lyrics, by their very nature, are not factual,
don't exhibit a lot of clear thinking, and certainly don't present
the complete picture on a given political/social issue.  Yet those
are the very qualities I look for in a political speech.

I could quibble about your list of artists who are intelligent and clear 
thinking, but I'll take your word for it.

>> And *why* would you want to give this bozo more attention than, say,
>> someone running for political office who has made it his/her life's
>> work to understand the issues involved?  God help us when we start taking
>> our political cues from entertainers.  The next thing you know, we'll be
>> electing one of them president :-( . . .  Uh, oh yeah . . . well, God
>> help us anyway.
>
>Again, look around you.  You don't think people ALREADY do a lot of things,
>political and non-, because of the influence of entertainers?  Some of these
>people have intelligent, thoughtful things to say - are you saying we
>should ignore anyone who talks about the real world in their music?
>Good luck.  Also, just because someone says something "political" doesn't
>mean you have to listen, or care.  From what I remember, Vedder's "speech"
>was rather short - I missed most of it because somebody called my name
>from across the room - and it didn't seem too offensive.  I don't necessarily
>agree with what he was saying, but it's his right.  He's a performer -
>it's what he does.  

Here's where we disagree.  Vedder's a performer.  He writes songs 
and performs them.  That's what he does.  And that's all well and
good.  However, I disagree strongly that he should be in a position
to make political speeches (which, in my opinion, serve a very different 
purpose than song lyrics) that have an enormous impact and influence on 
the millions of people who hear them.  He simply hasn't earned that right, 
and I have no way of knowing what he really knows or doesn't know about 
whatever particular issues he happens to be addressing in his speeches.  
Why the hell should I believe that someone who knows how to sing or play 
a guitar is thereby also an authority on political issues?   

Yes, I *do* think that a lot of people already do a lot of things,
political and non-political, because of the influence of entertainers.  
And I think that's pathetic.  The very nature of these political speeches 
in-between songs and the PSAs on MTV can do nothing *but* trivialize
the issues that are being addressed.  Why?  Because the issues are
far too complex to be captured and pinned down in a self-righteously
earnest fifteen second speech or a glib PSA.  It's a lie.  

I only feel qualified to speak about one societal issue - homelessness.
I've spent the last five years volunteering at a shelter for the
homeless, and I've talked to scores of people from every background
imaginable - college educated folks who lost their jobs, pimps,
prostitutes, scarred and bruised housewives who were fleeing 
from husbands who beat the shit out of them, drug addicts, the
mentally ill, people from well-to-do families who only lived 
ten miles away but who didn't want to relate to them.  And if I've
learned anything, I've learned that slogans and PSAs just don't
cut it.  What I've learned about homelessness will make your head
spin, but I've also learned enough to know that I really don't
know much at all.  There are no easy answers and quick-fix solutions.
And I doubt very seriously that the issue of homelessness is 
unique in that regard.   

So, yes, I get pissed off when I hear rock 'n roll stars mouthing
platitudes, and yes, I get pissed off when I see rock stars
seizing a forum that was never offered to them to express their 
political views.  Why should I care *what* Eddie Vedder thinks?  
And even more importantly, what kind of arrogance and conceit would 
lead Eddie Vedder to think that tens of millions of viewers would
*want* to hear his precious views?  Because he's a rock star?
Because he just happens to have a microphone in his hand and 
a camera pointed at his face?  Fuck that.

You know, ultimately that's what I find most depressing about an
incident like this.  Because you're right - a lot of people 
*are* influenced by this kind of stuff.  If Eddy Vedder, or
Madonna, or Michael Stipe tells them what to think, then
that's what they'll think.  And sorry, the "you don't *HAVE*
to listen" argument doesn't cut it either.  People *do* listen.
People listen because that's what you're supposed to do when
the TV or radio is on.  Sometimes I agree with the Madonna's
and Eddy Vedder's of the world, and sometimes I don't, but
that's not the point.  The point is that enormously important,
complex issues are being reduced to sound bytes and slogans,
and that people who have no business shaping public opinion
are given immense power to shape that opinion.  That sucks.  
And that's about the most polite way that I can put it.

(the rest of Jeremy's excellent posting deleted)

>Don't take this as a flame, Mr. Whitman.  Just a few subtle reminders -
>it's all IMHO.

Likewise, Mr. Hart.  Thanks for your thoughtful reply.

>Later.
>-- 
>Jeremy L. Hart				jeremyl@owlnet.rice.edu
>"As opaque warriors, we ride alone
> Guarding our secrets with souls of stone
> Waiting for someone who holds the key
> Do you hold it...do you hold the key to my heart..."
>	- "Apache Teardrops," copyright 1991 by Bill Fillbach and Steve Estes

Andy Whitman
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus, Ohio
att!cblpo!ajw  or
ajw@cblpo.att.com