Answers To Your Questions On Dismantling And Defunding Maroon 5
By: Rodney Uhler
Tags: Satire, Comedy, Humor, Activism, Police Reform

Maroon 5 via Wikimedia Commons

I’ve heard about this movement, but won’t defunding Maroon 5 lead to chaos in our streets?

No one says we are going to get rid of Maroon 5 instantaneously. They’ve been around since 1994, they have SEVEN members, and we’re used to their cultural presence. The movement to dismantle them is more about a slow progression to a Maroon 5 free world. It could start with limiting how many albums they can release or how often their songs are allowed to be used as filler on the radio when a DJ is just sort of uninspired. It’s about small steps in order to achieve big, positive change. It’s about understanding who is actually listening to their music and how we can hit that low sonic bar in other, more beneficial ways.

But what will happen to moms who want to “cut loose,” car commercials that need music, or drunk girls who are going through a moment?

The people and Toyotas who crave their music are not born, they are made. We need to look at the root of the problem in order to find new solutions. Why does Mrs. Johnson have saved photos of Adam Levine on her Samsung Galaxy in a folder called “Tax docs”? Why do rom-coms use “Moves Like Jagger” in scenes that take place at trendy nightclubs? Each instance needs a difficult, musically monotonous examination, but it ultimately comes down to a void that can be filled in other ways. The Nile River of money previously flowing to their Spotify can be diverted into both researching and fixing these problems with culturally enriching solutions.

Why not just keep Maroon 5 and fund other bands?

The argument is not just that they are overfunded, it’s that they are actively harmful to the culture at large. Maroon 5 is taking up the Billboard space that could be occupied by acts that aren’t human equivalents of overpriced whiskey. No one is doubting that the original intention of Maroon 5 wasn’t honorable: some of us even bought “Songs About Jane.” But now, after over 15 years, we know that no band should occupy the pop-funk-rock space. When a band is given too many genres, there is bound to be abuse.

What about moving record labels, employing new band members, or a new name? Maybe we just give them softer instruments?

We’ve tried this all before! They originally were a different name, they’ve self-released, they’ve been represented by seven different record labels (one even owned by Levine himself, which highlights the lack of outside oversight), and members have left and then returned with no questions asked. Look — we could bring this to politicians and maybe they’d present something that sounds exciting and new, like Chartreuse 6, but ultimately it would be seven different versions of the same guy who once told you he cried during Shawshank Redemption. We cannot risk the danger of subjecting future generations to falsetto.

This sounds good, in theory, but wouldn’t it be impossible to do?

History has proven that impossible is not a mindset we can afford to entertain when faced with threats to humanity. Creed was once behind The Beatles in terms of best-selling international musical artists, Train has two Grammys, Matchbox Twenty has three platinum albums and Limp Bizkit was allowed to exist, and yet we prevailed and our children will never know nor hear of these bands.

If you believe in a future devoid of Maroon 5, then have those tough conversations with your friends, family, and wedding DJs. Write to those in charge, like Ryan Seacrest. Reassure skeptics that a world without Maroon 5 in the Top 40 is not only achievable but an even more harmonious one.