Tag: music politics

Free Bob Dylan

Matthew EilarLeave a comment

This Slate piece by Ron Rosenbaum on the cult of Bob Dylan, musical politics in China, and the neverending mystery of the man is one of the best pieces of music writing I’ve heard in a long time.

Here’s a taste:

And then they twisted themselves into pretzel-like contradictions: Dylan was never really a protest singer anyway; he only faked being one early in his career to get a leg up the ladder of fame from the folkies then fashionable when he arrived in New York at the beginning of the ’60s. So he shouldn’t have been expected to do anything confrontational in China; he was, like, above mundane political considerations.

Great defense! They’re saying—his defenders!—that he was a scheming careerist liar. (Do they really believe the emotion in that beautiful ballad “Song to Woody” was all faked?) But he’s Dylan so it’s OK.

What’s amusing is that they’re willing to accept his explanation that he was never sincere in the first place politically so he shouldn’t be bothered by it now. Don’t they realize that this itself could be insincere. That he might be insincere in his protestations of insincerity about his protest songs? They’re just such suckers for anything that issues from Bob’s mouth they don’t know when or whether they’ve been conned by one of the great put-on artists.

Still you have to love Dylan for creating all the mystery—and for that immortal line from the disclaimer-of-sincerity period when the folkies were on his case: “Folk music is a bunch of fat people.”

But if Dylan was never really a protest singer, how can you claim at the same time that his songs, whatever he played, had the effect of a powerful protest on the Chinese torturers? Oh, and one of the most peculiar Bobolator defenses was that he really didn’t, as Maureen Dowd implied, inspire anti-Vietnam War protesters with his music because, despite all the anti-war songs Maureen Dowd wanted him to play, like “Masters of War,” he wasn’t really against the Vietnam War! It may be true: The entire Vietnam protest movement was mistaken if they took any inspiration from him. They had the wrong exegesis!

Good for music?

Matthew EilarLeave a comment

OK GO’s breakout success came after an extremely popular homemade music video was uploaded onto YouTube. Quirky music videos became their shtick. Remarkably, when they released a new(-ish) single, “This Too Shall Pass,” their label, EMI, decided to make the video un-embeddable and issue takedown notices when it popped up on YouTube. The band made them reverse the decision, but it’s an example of when idiot executives fail to understand that what looks good in the short term might not work out in the long term.

I’ve been mulling over this Boston Globe article about copyright enforcement for a few weeks. Copyright enforcement is a tricky issue. First, it’s important to recognize the conflict between thinking of copyright as a property right (artists create something and they have the right to sell it any way that they want) and as a tool for encouraging art (the original language in the US Constitution that covers copyright gives authority to Congress like this: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”). These two ideas are not necessarily opposed, but the internet and modern artistic trends seem designed to poke at the gaps between those two perspectives. For example, if you view copyright as a property right, it’s entirely reasonable to ask that mash-up artists get permission to use samples in their releases. The musicians who created the sample own it, and can allow others to use it as they see fit. On the other hand, if you wanted to promote the progress of art, you would want to break down those barriers.

Other people have written at length about this divide with more depth and understanding than I have, but I was intrigued by another aspect of music and copyright, which is that it is much easier and simpler to strike a correct balance between content creators and those who wish to use their work in an honor-based system than in a legal system. If musicians act in an honorable way, it’s not a big deal that your songs are covered by people that pose no financial threat to you. No matter what, The Eagles will always have more fans than The Eagles Tribute Band. From the other direction, independent gigging musicians understand that it’s a douchbag move to cover a song by somebody in the same position as yourself. If you’re going to perform covers, perform songs by well known and successful acts.

There’s another category of copyright offense that I don’t understand at all. The article (which is pretty good, if that will make you click through) also mentions crackdowns on open mic and variety nights. This is completely stupid, and like the Teachout article last-ish week, it’s an example of people in a position of power (the RIAA in the music industry, Teachout’s audience at the WSJ) that either have no interest in the long-term prospects of their fields or lack the vision to see what the long term consequences of their actions are. Discouraging people from performing because they either don’t have entry-level venues or they worry about harassment from the RIAA hurts music. Period. By acting in such a foolish and thuggish way, they’re diminishing their future power.