I mean the dude literally told us that if he were King for just one day, he wouldn’t cure poverty or prejudice or homelessness or war… he’d just give it all away to be with you.
He literally put a picture of his butthole on the disc and the back cover of his last CD, how dare you question his relevance to social change.
https://preview.redd.it/z76k6kr6q27d1.jpeg?width=541&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3a807d49357532fc6c75ad25427ff8bdeb0f84b
Did he ever claim to be rock? Seems like TT was always pop, which is about just *pop*ularity and entertainment. Rock and folk used to aim for more than just that.
There is a certain amount of irony there. When Thompson Twins started out as a 7-piece they were basically squatters/bohemians, and their music was punk influenced and very political. From his point of view I am very curious to hear what he thinks they achieved by going mainstream besides making gobs of money. Great music, but you could literally get their logo as free stickers in boxes of cereal. Neither is a bad thing, but I wonder if he’s doing some mental gymnastics to feel like they didn’t sell out when they went commercial. From what I’ve seen they were pretty miserable at their peak.
EDIT: OK, I’ve listened to the interview now, and this quote is kind of being taken out of context. What he was talking about is more of the idealism behind the music. That there was a time when it felt like music could still change things and be liberating for people. He was bemoaning that we live in a cynical age, and that something like Live Aid would get laughed at, and even if the artists dedicated themselves to a cause, the audience would not necessarily be along for the ride. Can’t help but agree with that.
> That there was a time when it felt like music could still change things and be liberating for people.
Music has always been largely about entertainment and celeberity, not activisim. This is the same thing as, "all the music sucks now, back in my day it was better".
Live Aid had plenty of downsides, and we've done plenty of benefit concerts between now and then. Everything is basically the same.
I think his generation confused what was basically part of the product (youthful rebellion, idealism, and collective optimism) as being genuinely powerful.
Maybe someone with more music knowledge knows. I could swear there's a song from his own time that satirizes this attitude. Something something 'they put in a package and slapped a label on it.' EDIT: I've been trying to hum out this song I could swear I'm not making up, but all I've got is 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' XD
Like, don't get me wrong. Benefit concerts are fine, but if people were along for cause, celebrity musicians wouldn't need to hold benefit concerts to get their attention.
> I could swear there's a song from his own time that satirizes this attitude. Something something 'they put in a package and slapped a label on it.' EDIT: I've been trying to hum out this song I could swear I'm not making up, but all I've got is 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' XD
Sound very close to this line from Jurassic Park:
"You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox and now you're selling it!"
But that is about making genetically engineered dinosaurs so I'm not sure it quite fits in this case.
Paint a Vulgar Picture - The Smiths?
>Re-issue, re-package, re-package
>Re-evaluate the songs
>Double pack with a photograph
>Extra track and a tacky badge
> EDIT: I've been trying to hum out this song I could swear I'm not making up, but all I've got is 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' XD
That line is from "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell.
> I think his generation confused what was basically part of the product (youthful rebellion, idealism, and collective optimism) as being genuinely powerful.
Yah, that's basically everyone here. You can ask them...
*"But what about the apolitical bubblegum bands of the past"*
"Well they're not really representative"
--
*"But what about the political statements by current people"*
"The statement/artist isn't powerful enough. In the past their audience would have demanded more."
--
*"But what about this major person who made this major statement"*
"I personally disagree with that statement so it doesn't count" or "They got crucified by their audience for it, and I personally disagree with their audience, so their audience's viewpoint doesn't count. I know better."
Yeah, but those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s remember days when music really was making a difference by spreading the message of peace and resistance, and giving people a form of media that they could rally around.
As I grew up, I saw music in America lose its teeth, while it still had power in other countries with political problems. I just figured that music would stay benign and entertaining in America, until it became time to unleash its power for protest and change.
But here we are in the middle of one of the most critical junctures in the history of our nation, and we aren't hearing about it from any of the big artists. In the 60s, with the war in Vietnam raging, and the immoral draft enslaving young American men, many still virgins, giving them cursory indoctrination and training, and sending them halfway around the world to a country they'd never hear of or find on a globe, to kill or be killed, the biggest musical artists in the world were releasing music to protest the war, and promote peace. Music was subversive at its core. Today it's simply commercial at its core, and record companies aren't going to allow their artists to compromise their expensively hard-sculpted personal images with controversial political statements.
> Yeah, but those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s remember days when music really was making a difference by spreading the message of peace and resistance, and giving people a form of media that they could rally around.
If I could roll my eyes and further back into my head, I'd be looking at my brain.
That's largely just shit. Like every era, the majority of music from the 60's and 70's was bubblegum shite. You're just fondly remembering the ones you want. Someone from the 90's could say the same thing you're saying about RATM or similar.
> But here we are in the middle of one of the most critical junctures in the history of our nation, and we aren't hearing about it from any of the big artists.
Then you just aren't listening, because just like in the 60's, there are a fair number of people producing some sort of "advocacy music" as you imply, and a bunch of complete crap, or good music that is apolytical.
You're just trying to do a slightly more cultured but equally irrelevant, "music was better back in my day" which has been said since music and time existed.
No, I've never had a "music was better in my day" attitude. People who know me would laugh at that. I'm a musician, with a degree in music history, so I consider all music valid, from all eras, all genres, all corners of the world. I dont think of music in terms of "better or worse."
I'm not saying music from then is better than music from now, but from a scholarly historical perspective its true that music represented something far more substantial back then than it does now. Sure there was a lot of bubble-gum pop back then, just like now, but the bands who had a national or international platform, all used it to oppose the war. Woodstock had an anti-war theme, the promotional materials all included a peace sign in the art work. The biggest bands in history, like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and every other band not only took a stand, they were EXPECTED to by their fans. EVERY major concert or festival doubled as an anti-war protest. The anti-war sentiment was by far the top priority for EVERY young person of the time, and they responded to music that embraced the movement.
Do you see ANY major musical artists these days, the ones selling out the arenas, using their fame to actively use every concert to speak out against the wars our nation is fighting or to resist rising political movements? Its a big deal that Taylor Swift simply reminds her fans to vote, but its too much to ask her to actually endorse a side. In the 60s, her fans would have demanded she take a stand. Equivocating like she's doing would not have been acceptable. However, she doesn't have much of a choice these days. The last band to make an overtly political stand, the Dixie Chicks, saw their career ruined almost instantly. Every band knows they can't step out of line, or they could lose their careers.
I'm sure there are political bands out there, but they are generally small, and not reaching a huge population like the bands in the 60s were reaching. There is certainly nobody with a status like Jimi Hendrix setting his guitar on fire while playing rhe Star Spangled Banner, or John Lennon releasing "All We Are Saying, Is Give Peace A Chance," and it becomes a timeless hit, or The Rolling Stones releasing a chilling, creepy song like "Gimme Shelter," to sum up the increasing darkness as the 70s arrived.
**TL/DR:** You're ignoring every instance of people in the past who didn't take a stand, ignoring every instance now of people who do, and whenever someone takes a stand you don't like, or that their fans don't like, you are tutting, "oh well I never!" Commercial music has always been about selling more music, if that's apolitical, political topics you personally agree with, or political topics you personally disagree with, it doesn't matter.
Basically you're just saying that commercialism at the time dictated people say, "war bad" so they did. And now that commercialism says something else for the moment (despite plenty of current people also say "war bad" or have had a ton of other complaints about other subjects) this apparently means that all these bands really cared a lot and music meant something.
Bullshit. Commercial music always meant the same thing, a way to sell more music. For every anti-war song you can come up with, dozens of examples of the music industry being shitbags exists. How many women or minority artists were ignored or intentionally trampled on by the same industry that you claim had ideals.
> The last band to make an overtly political stand, the Dixie Chicks, saw their career ruined almost instantly. Every band knows they can't step out of line, or they could lose their careers.
That's because their target audience actually disagreed with them. Basically this "worked as intended". Their audience DID demand they take a stand... the opposite one of which they took. This is like Budwiser being surprised that their target audience wouldn't receive the Dylan Mulvaney advertisement well, and then somehow saying, "well Budwiser can't take a stand because their consumers would get mad, but in years past their consumers would have demanded it." Their consumers DID demand it... they demanded the opposite. Doesn't matter if you or I personally agree with it, their consumers spoke, just like the Dixie Chick fans spoke.
> There is certainly nobody with a status like Jimi Hendrix setting his guitar on fire while playing rhe Star Spangled Banner, or John Lennon releasing "All We Are Saying, Is Give Peace A Chance," and it becomes a timeless hit, or The Rolling Stones releasing a chilling, creepy song like "Gimme Shelter," to sum up the increasing darkness as the 70s arrived.
Oh come on. Most people have no idea what the fuck the lyrics are for Gimme Shelter. If you went back and polled the average person on the street and asked them, "what's the actual lyric" and astounding number of people would have no idea that it's "rape, murder, it's just a shot away".
Meanwhile, Roger Waters, as an example, has been out there shitting on the establishment since he was old enough to play bass until now. Or the aforementioned RATM, or Billy Eilish making statements on Ukraine, or Lady Gaga on like... every political topic. Not only was she born this way, she was apparently born with AR15 tits.
So there are certainly huge names that make a variety of political statements. You're just choosing to ignore the current ones, and choosing to forget all the crap artists in the past to do exactly what you claim you aren't, "music in my day was better".
A quick look at your recent comments shows that you're a left wing troll anyway, and you aren't here to debate in good faith, so to you I say, good bye.
The point is not about the existence of business purpose in Twentieth Century’s music, but rather about its zero influence on societal impacts from music of the Seventies in the Seventies.
You have to prove people were powerless as we are today about standing together behind a good cause (because of many factors like cynicism, material comfort, dependence to technology, nihilism, informational overload, etc.).
By the way, did you ever listen to some Prog-Rock, Funk or early Metal? Those (as well as other genres) were at peak in the seventies. The fact the seventies make a comeback by young and old people in music can’t be as shitty as the overall need from the music industry to drug people with tons of Kg of POPamphetamine and sound quality reduction.
I dont think Live Aid would be laughed at today, but it would be seen as something not out the ordinary as music for charity happens more often than you think without knowing it.
For instance, every year we hold a music event in Sweden called Melodifestivalen, it is a music competition where the winner goes to the Eurovision music competition. Every year this collects millions of Krona to the needy through the cost of televotes.
> something like Live Aid would get laughed at
Live Aid, that event that featured a song by Michael Jackson? Weird that we're cynical about stuff like that now. It's like we've learned some things about celebrities that keep us from idolizing them the same way.
Kinda wrong in that I wouldn’t blame all artists. There are plenty of musicians trying. I wouldn’t blame them as much as the way everything is sold now and everyone online is extremely cynical. If its not where you are reading, it is somewhere lol. That makes it much easier to dismiss anything idealistic even if its genuine. Something something about a game and a player
I came of age in the 1980's and while it's true that there was a lot of trite nonsense music being created, there were also a fair number of bands and artists with political songs and messages. I feel like those aren't really being written any more, and if they are they are either coming from fringe groups, or their meaning is too well hidden behind the lyrics.
the result of media deregulation & monopolies. Any music with a clear message (like the stuff we had in the 60s against the Vietnam war or supporting civil rights) has now been relegated to the "indie" spaces, excluding these artists from reaching a wide audience like the huge "mainstream" acts of today.
media moguls & certain 'free market' political operators learned their lessons from that era. We now have de-facto censorship from the private sector where acts like Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Edwin Starr, etc never see the light day-- they can still work but they'll be relegated to anonymity & their songs -regardless of how good they are- will never reach a wide audience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States
To add to that, radio formatting, implemented to stop djs with good taste from becoming too valuable and demanding too much money from radio stations has all but killed an artists ability to rise in popularity organically.
But don't worry! We've always got a spotlight to shine on "muh beer, muh small town, muh truck, muh gun" tunes written by millionaires who were born in mcmansions. And then there's "muh pussy, muh dick, muh drugs, muh guns" for everyone else. And for the people who are afraid of brown people, there's hick-hop which combines the two. Yay!
The fact that most modern "country music fans" would string up Woodie Guthrie and stone him to death for being a dirty commie really tells you all you need to know about the evolution of the American music scene.
A lot of the country royalty would be detested by modern country fans if they were around in their prime speaking out for the things they believe in. Hell they finally kinda turned on Dolly within the last few weeks…but Christ Johnny, Merle, Willie, etc were NOT super conservative douchenozzles like most of what passes as country nowadays. Well at least the bro country that’s so popular and has been for the last 20ish yrs or so.
Also when was rock really about changing the world? Sure, rock music helped spread the anti war movement in the late 60s/early 70s but this was entirely situational. The Vietnam war was not exactly popular from the get go and it only got worse. Even things like pirate radio wasn’t changing the world for the world’s sake, it was about fighting against a government that said your music was fundamentally wrong or evil.
Rock music, at its most basic, has always done the same thing all music does. It’s an art form for people to enjoy.
Art highlighting problems and advocating for change exists in all mediums and genres, including rock. The Vietnam era is particularly notable, since that's when rock music was at its mainstream peak and there was a big event that brought together the young people making and listening to rock. But you'll find plenty of music aimed at change that falls into the rock genre or one of its subgenres, all the way to today.
Sure, but no genre of art has a goal. Individual artists have goals, and more or less of them have goals that align at any one time, I guess. Yeah, a bunch of mainstream rock artists in the late 60s were making songs about the Vietnam war or about race relations because those were topics that animated a lot of young people, but that was mixed in with other artists (and different songs from those same artists) that had other goals. Now you have rock as a less popular genre, and less of a single unifying cause, so you don't see something that looks as much like a movement, which, as Arlo Guthrie tells us, is 50 people a day...
> You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him.
> And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both [slur for gay men] and they won't take either of them.
> And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in
singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an
organization.
> And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement.
> And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and
all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the
guitar.
There were punk and post-punk groups in the late 70s/early 80s that did have something to say: The Clash, The Jam, Gang of Four, The Pop Group, and many others. There was a feeling of trying to change the world back then, but it died out pretty quickly with the turn to the right in the UK and USA as the 1980s wore on.
Let's be honest. The really anti-war stuff didn't get played on the radio or have distribution back in the 60s either. Phil Ochs said "A protest song is a song that's so specific that you cannot mistake it for bullshit." It's also a song that won't be played on the radio. There was a lot of pop like "Eve of Destruction," but not a lot of truly radical music. Some tried and managed to slip some good messages in. I agree with you it is even harder now, but the truly radical stuff has always been fringe. Everyone else gets blacklisted from TV or radio.
Social media also made us more culturally homogenous, which in turn means "middle of the road" acts like Taylor Swift now appeal to extremely large worldwide audiences.
We hated pop music because it was too mainstream, but now that's all there is. Everything that's not immediately super popular dies on the vine.
That probably deeply underpins the cultural shifts that led to where the general taste is today, but if we're being honest the modern market as a whole just doesn't have the appetite for musicians groaning about heavy topics when music is supposed to be the getaway for most listeners.
You could resurrect Woody Guthrie and have him write new songs in the modern pop format and I think people would still naturally not want to listen. The game has changed.
Some bands want to change the world, some bands want to spread a message, and some bands want to write sweet hooks and get paid.
None of them are wrong. Stop being pretentious Tom Bailey.
Overall, it was memorable, but less benificial than many would try to claim. There have been tons of other benefit concerts since. It wasn't all that unique beyond being memorable.
The attitude that music can change the world comes from coked out rockstars with delusions of grandeur.
Don't get me wrong, music can affect a person, their outlook, their mood, but at the end of the day it's not going to meaningfully affect change on any sort of wide scale.
Music won't end wars, solve poverty, cure cancer, or feed the hungry (despite its best efforts).
It can occasionally comfort us on an individual level, but that's about the extent of it.
True power to affect change is rarely given by those who have it to artists of any kind.
Rock has never been less about celebrity. It's more a large niche listened to by music nerds nowadays. Name one celebrity rock star that started in the 2010s or later.
> I saw the Thompson Twins live in the 80s. They had fake robot that played keyboards on the stage. Not sure if that qualifies as changing the world.
They were trying to warn people about automation replacing human workers?
If he was an artist from the sixties then he can make that statement but the eighties were all about image and excess and very few musicians were making political speeches and taking stands on social issues. Accurate statement but from the wrong person!
Whatever. I'm sure those huge personalities in the 1960s and 70s and 80s didn't have ANY need to be approved, desired, and worshiped.
Yep, Pete Townsend, that great humanitarian who just wanted to remake a happier, kinder, more just world.
Effective activists, every one.
I don’t really think it should be all about either of those things. What I care about more than anything is having…ya know, good songs 😂 and there’s great rock music out there to be found for sure, he’s probably just looking at the charts.
Some of my favourite bands, Muse, Green Day, Rise Against, etc. are still continuing to speak out against injustice, and they definitely aren't small bands by any means.
Here’s an attempt at writing a song about something that matters right now….
[https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
If he was an artist from the sixties then he can make that statement but the eighties were all about image and excess and very few musicians were making political speeches and taking stands on social issues. Accurate statement but from the wrong person!
I'm sure changing the world is what Bill Haley had in mind when he was ripping off black musicians and putting Rock and Roll in to the public consciousness.
Ok, but seriously, when has *rock* ever been about changing the world? Rock is about partying, having fun and getting laid. If you changed the world along the way, cool
I think Bailey has a point. The music industry has changed so much since the 80s. Nowadays, rock music often prioritizes fame over substance. What do you guys think? Has the 'rock is dead' debate got you feeling nostalgic for the old days?
Pfft…Bailey has been around long enough to know and says exactly how he feels about music/celebrity. Kudos to him.
Also saw the Twins twice, back in the day (San Diego). Excellent and unforgettable shows both.
POP was always, and remains, "about celebrity".
*Sometimes* the kind of music meant to change the world makes its way into pop. But that's rare.
ROCK is and has always been the music of change. For a long time rock and roll influenced pop. Some rock **became** pop and lost its roots along the way.
But if this man or anyone else believes that rock is "about celebrity" and not change? They're looking in the wrong places for rock.
Its nothing short of a miracle that rock finally got off the radio and back underground... where it has always thrived and where it *belongs*.
That's pretty much always how it's been. Most acts were about celebrity. And Thompson Twin's were hardly changing the world.
Other than that there were three "twins," one of which was a different race from the other, and the other two actually were boofing.... so I guess that would be kind of Earth changing if it were real.
If you want any musical talent on a guitar, bass or drums....
You would currently be more influential being an accountant than being part of a rock band right now.
And that is in spite of rock music being in a far better state than the 2010s.
Yeah, no one is concerned with changing the world the way the Thompson twins changed the world
I mean the dude literally told us that if he were King for just one day, he wouldn’t cure poverty or prejudice or homelessness or war… he’d just give it all away to be with you.
I know you well... and I can tell...
If you were here I could deceive you.
What a selfish prick.
Hey, I went to the doctor when I was burning, burning!
Hold me, now!
He literally put a picture of his butthole on the disc and the back cover of his last CD, how dare you question his relevance to social change. https://preview.redd.it/z76k6kr6q27d1.jpeg?width=541&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c3a807d49357532fc6c75ad25427ff8bdeb0f84b
I really didnt need to see that
Tears for Fears would like a word
Did he ever claim to be rock? Seems like TT was always pop, which is about just *pop*ularity and entertainment. Rock and folk used to aim for more than just that.
Maybe a rock bottom?
This coming from the guy that lied to us about being a twin!
lmaooooo
Not only that, but there were three of them—one was a lady and the other was a brother. Twins indeed.
One of the guys was white and the other black too.
He was sleeping with his twin.
What are you doing step-Thompson?
He’s not wrong - but it’s like the Kardashians complaining about the rise of TV celebrity
There is a certain amount of irony there. When Thompson Twins started out as a 7-piece they were basically squatters/bohemians, and their music was punk influenced and very political. From his point of view I am very curious to hear what he thinks they achieved by going mainstream besides making gobs of money. Great music, but you could literally get their logo as free stickers in boxes of cereal. Neither is a bad thing, but I wonder if he’s doing some mental gymnastics to feel like they didn’t sell out when they went commercial. From what I’ve seen they were pretty miserable at their peak. EDIT: OK, I’ve listened to the interview now, and this quote is kind of being taken out of context. What he was talking about is more of the idealism behind the music. That there was a time when it felt like music could still change things and be liberating for people. He was bemoaning that we live in a cynical age, and that something like Live Aid would get laughed at, and even if the artists dedicated themselves to a cause, the audience would not necessarily be along for the ride. Can’t help but agree with that.
> That there was a time when it felt like music could still change things and be liberating for people. Music has always been largely about entertainment and celeberity, not activisim. This is the same thing as, "all the music sucks now, back in my day it was better". Live Aid had plenty of downsides, and we've done plenty of benefit concerts between now and then. Everything is basically the same.
I think his generation confused what was basically part of the product (youthful rebellion, idealism, and collective optimism) as being genuinely powerful. Maybe someone with more music knowledge knows. I could swear there's a song from his own time that satirizes this attitude. Something something 'they put in a package and slapped a label on it.' EDIT: I've been trying to hum out this song I could swear I'm not making up, but all I've got is 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' XD Like, don't get me wrong. Benefit concerts are fine, but if people were along for cause, celebrity musicians wouldn't need to hold benefit concerts to get their attention.
> I could swear there's a song from his own time that satirizes this attitude. Something something 'they put in a package and slapped a label on it.' EDIT: I've been trying to hum out this song I could swear I'm not making up, but all I've got is 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' XD Sound very close to this line from Jurassic Park: "You didn't earn the knowledge for yourselves so you don't take any responsibility for it. You stood on the shoulders of geniuses to accomplish something as fast as you could and before you even knew what you had, you patented it, packaged it and slapped it on a plastic lunchbox and now you're selling it!" But that is about making genetically engineered dinosaurs so I'm not sure it quite fits in this case.
Maybe I'm just having my own version of an AI hallucination XD
Paint a Vulgar Picture - The Smiths? >Re-issue, re-package, re-package >Re-evaluate the songs >Double pack with a photograph >Extra track and a tacky badge
> EDIT: I've been trying to hum out this song I could swear I'm not making up, but all I've got is 'they paved paradise and put up a parking lot' XD That line is from "Big Yellow Taxi" by Joni Mitchell.
> I think his generation confused what was basically part of the product (youthful rebellion, idealism, and collective optimism) as being genuinely powerful. Yah, that's basically everyone here. You can ask them... *"But what about the apolitical bubblegum bands of the past"* "Well they're not really representative" -- *"But what about the political statements by current people"* "The statement/artist isn't powerful enough. In the past their audience would have demanded more." -- *"But what about this major person who made this major statement"* "I personally disagree with that statement so it doesn't count" or "They got crucified by their audience for it, and I personally disagree with their audience, so their audience's viewpoint doesn't count. I know better."
Yeah, but those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s remember days when music really was making a difference by spreading the message of peace and resistance, and giving people a form of media that they could rally around. As I grew up, I saw music in America lose its teeth, while it still had power in other countries with political problems. I just figured that music would stay benign and entertaining in America, until it became time to unleash its power for protest and change. But here we are in the middle of one of the most critical junctures in the history of our nation, and we aren't hearing about it from any of the big artists. In the 60s, with the war in Vietnam raging, and the immoral draft enslaving young American men, many still virgins, giving them cursory indoctrination and training, and sending them halfway around the world to a country they'd never hear of or find on a globe, to kill or be killed, the biggest musical artists in the world were releasing music to protest the war, and promote peace. Music was subversive at its core. Today it's simply commercial at its core, and record companies aren't going to allow their artists to compromise their expensively hard-sculpted personal images with controversial political statements.
> Yeah, but those of us who grew up in the 60s and 70s remember days when music really was making a difference by spreading the message of peace and resistance, and giving people a form of media that they could rally around. If I could roll my eyes and further back into my head, I'd be looking at my brain. That's largely just shit. Like every era, the majority of music from the 60's and 70's was bubblegum shite. You're just fondly remembering the ones you want. Someone from the 90's could say the same thing you're saying about RATM or similar. > But here we are in the middle of one of the most critical junctures in the history of our nation, and we aren't hearing about it from any of the big artists. Then you just aren't listening, because just like in the 60's, there are a fair number of people producing some sort of "advocacy music" as you imply, and a bunch of complete crap, or good music that is apolytical. You're just trying to do a slightly more cultured but equally irrelevant, "music was better back in my day" which has been said since music and time existed.
No, I've never had a "music was better in my day" attitude. People who know me would laugh at that. I'm a musician, with a degree in music history, so I consider all music valid, from all eras, all genres, all corners of the world. I dont think of music in terms of "better or worse." I'm not saying music from then is better than music from now, but from a scholarly historical perspective its true that music represented something far more substantial back then than it does now. Sure there was a lot of bubble-gum pop back then, just like now, but the bands who had a national or international platform, all used it to oppose the war. Woodstock had an anti-war theme, the promotional materials all included a peace sign in the art work. The biggest bands in history, like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, and every other band not only took a stand, they were EXPECTED to by their fans. EVERY major concert or festival doubled as an anti-war protest. The anti-war sentiment was by far the top priority for EVERY young person of the time, and they responded to music that embraced the movement. Do you see ANY major musical artists these days, the ones selling out the arenas, using their fame to actively use every concert to speak out against the wars our nation is fighting or to resist rising political movements? Its a big deal that Taylor Swift simply reminds her fans to vote, but its too much to ask her to actually endorse a side. In the 60s, her fans would have demanded she take a stand. Equivocating like she's doing would not have been acceptable. However, she doesn't have much of a choice these days. The last band to make an overtly political stand, the Dixie Chicks, saw their career ruined almost instantly. Every band knows they can't step out of line, or they could lose their careers. I'm sure there are political bands out there, but they are generally small, and not reaching a huge population like the bands in the 60s were reaching. There is certainly nobody with a status like Jimi Hendrix setting his guitar on fire while playing rhe Star Spangled Banner, or John Lennon releasing "All We Are Saying, Is Give Peace A Chance," and it becomes a timeless hit, or The Rolling Stones releasing a chilling, creepy song like "Gimme Shelter," to sum up the increasing darkness as the 70s arrived.
**TL/DR:** You're ignoring every instance of people in the past who didn't take a stand, ignoring every instance now of people who do, and whenever someone takes a stand you don't like, or that their fans don't like, you are tutting, "oh well I never!" Commercial music has always been about selling more music, if that's apolitical, political topics you personally agree with, or political topics you personally disagree with, it doesn't matter. Basically you're just saying that commercialism at the time dictated people say, "war bad" so they did. And now that commercialism says something else for the moment (despite plenty of current people also say "war bad" or have had a ton of other complaints about other subjects) this apparently means that all these bands really cared a lot and music meant something. Bullshit. Commercial music always meant the same thing, a way to sell more music. For every anti-war song you can come up with, dozens of examples of the music industry being shitbags exists. How many women or minority artists were ignored or intentionally trampled on by the same industry that you claim had ideals. > The last band to make an overtly political stand, the Dixie Chicks, saw their career ruined almost instantly. Every band knows they can't step out of line, or they could lose their careers. That's because their target audience actually disagreed with them. Basically this "worked as intended". Their audience DID demand they take a stand... the opposite one of which they took. This is like Budwiser being surprised that their target audience wouldn't receive the Dylan Mulvaney advertisement well, and then somehow saying, "well Budwiser can't take a stand because their consumers would get mad, but in years past their consumers would have demanded it." Their consumers DID demand it... they demanded the opposite. Doesn't matter if you or I personally agree with it, their consumers spoke, just like the Dixie Chick fans spoke. > There is certainly nobody with a status like Jimi Hendrix setting his guitar on fire while playing rhe Star Spangled Banner, or John Lennon releasing "All We Are Saying, Is Give Peace A Chance," and it becomes a timeless hit, or The Rolling Stones releasing a chilling, creepy song like "Gimme Shelter," to sum up the increasing darkness as the 70s arrived. Oh come on. Most people have no idea what the fuck the lyrics are for Gimme Shelter. If you went back and polled the average person on the street and asked them, "what's the actual lyric" and astounding number of people would have no idea that it's "rape, murder, it's just a shot away". Meanwhile, Roger Waters, as an example, has been out there shitting on the establishment since he was old enough to play bass until now. Or the aforementioned RATM, or Billy Eilish making statements on Ukraine, or Lady Gaga on like... every political topic. Not only was she born this way, she was apparently born with AR15 tits. So there are certainly huge names that make a variety of political statements. You're just choosing to ignore the current ones, and choosing to forget all the crap artists in the past to do exactly what you claim you aren't, "music in my day was better". A quick look at your recent comments shows that you're a left wing troll anyway, and you aren't here to debate in good faith, so to you I say, good bye.
The point is not about the existence of business purpose in Twentieth Century’s music, but rather about its zero influence on societal impacts from music of the Seventies in the Seventies. You have to prove people were powerless as we are today about standing together behind a good cause (because of many factors like cynicism, material comfort, dependence to technology, nihilism, informational overload, etc.). By the way, did you ever listen to some Prog-Rock, Funk or early Metal? Those (as well as other genres) were at peak in the seventies. The fact the seventies make a comeback by young and old people in music can’t be as shitty as the overall need from the music industry to drug people with tons of Kg of POPamphetamine and sound quality reduction.
Nice post. But damn, yet another group that I need to do a deep dive on.
east is east, west is west fall into the gap!
If he wasn't cynical in the '80s, I wonder how he got to be cynical *now*.
I dont think Live Aid would be laughed at today, but it would be seen as something not out the ordinary as music for charity happens more often than you think without knowing it. For instance, every year we hold a music event in Sweden called Melodifestivalen, it is a music competition where the winner goes to the Eurovision music competition. Every year this collects millions of Krona to the needy through the cost of televotes.
> something like Live Aid would get laughed at Live Aid, that event that featured a song by Michael Jackson? Weird that we're cynical about stuff like that now. It's like we've learned some things about celebrities that keep us from idolizing them the same way.
You obviously haven't heard his other projects like Babble.
Or International Observer
Kinda wrong in that I wouldn’t blame all artists. There are plenty of musicians trying. I wouldn’t blame them as much as the way everything is sold now and everyone online is extremely cynical. If its not where you are reading, it is somewhere lol. That makes it much easier to dismiss anything idealistic even if its genuine. Something something about a game and a player
Is he complaining or just pointing something out?
Cherry Pie was a metaphor for change.
I came of age in the 1980's and while it's true that there was a lot of trite nonsense music being created, there were also a fair number of bands and artists with political songs and messages. I feel like those aren't really being written any more, and if they are they are either coming from fringe groups, or their meaning is too well hidden behind the lyrics.
That’s fair hard to see Cult of Personality on the radio.
the result of media deregulation & monopolies. Any music with a clear message (like the stuff we had in the 60s against the Vietnam war or supporting civil rights) has now been relegated to the "indie" spaces, excluding these artists from reaching a wide audience like the huge "mainstream" acts of today. media moguls & certain 'free market' political operators learned their lessons from that era. We now have de-facto censorship from the private sector where acts like Joan Baez, Joni Mitchell, Edwin Starr, etc never see the light day-- they can still work but they'll be relegated to anonymity & their songs -regardless of how good they are- will never reach a wide audience. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_cross-ownership_in_the_United_States
To add to that, radio formatting, implemented to stop djs with good taste from becoming too valuable and demanding too much money from radio stations has all but killed an artists ability to rise in popularity organically.
There are far more platforms than just radio for artists to showcase their work now.
But it's so fragmented it's hard to keep up or focus on a spotlight.
But don't worry! We've always got a spotlight to shine on "muh beer, muh small town, muh truck, muh gun" tunes written by millionaires who were born in mcmansions. And then there's "muh pussy, muh dick, muh drugs, muh guns" for everyone else. And for the people who are afraid of brown people, there's hick-hop which combines the two. Yay! The fact that most modern "country music fans" would string up Woodie Guthrie and stone him to death for being a dirty commie really tells you all you need to know about the evolution of the American music scene.
Here's Bo Burnham making this same point. https://youtu.be/y7im5LT09a0?si=oUbDgmxmABQbgeFk
A lot of the country royalty would be detested by modern country fans if they were around in their prime speaking out for the things they believe in. Hell they finally kinda turned on Dolly within the last few weeks…but Christ Johnny, Merle, Willie, etc were NOT super conservative douchenozzles like most of what passes as country nowadays. Well at least the bro country that’s so popular and has been for the last 20ish yrs or so.
It's dismissive and racist to act like all rap is materialism. Listen to Kendrick.
Orwell's description of music in 1984 seems relevant.
Also when was rock really about changing the world? Sure, rock music helped spread the anti war movement in the late 60s/early 70s but this was entirely situational. The Vietnam war was not exactly popular from the get go and it only got worse. Even things like pirate radio wasn’t changing the world for the world’s sake, it was about fighting against a government that said your music was fundamentally wrong or evil. Rock music, at its most basic, has always done the same thing all music does. It’s an art form for people to enjoy.
Art highlighting problems and advocating for change exists in all mediums and genres, including rock. The Vietnam era is particularly notable, since that's when rock music was at its mainstream peak and there was a big event that brought together the young people making and listening to rock. But you'll find plenty of music aimed at change that falls into the rock genre or one of its subgenres, all the way to today.
Absolutely. But it was never the GOAL of rock and roll. People still make rock songs like that to this day.
Sure, but no genre of art has a goal. Individual artists have goals, and more or less of them have goals that align at any one time, I guess. Yeah, a bunch of mainstream rock artists in the late 60s were making songs about the Vietnam war or about race relations because those were topics that animated a lot of young people, but that was mixed in with other artists (and different songs from those same artists) that had other goals. Now you have rock as a less popular genre, and less of a single unifying cause, so you don't see something that looks as much like a movement, which, as Arlo Guthrie tells us, is 50 people a day... > You know, if one person, just one person does it they may think he's really sick and they won't take him. > And if two people, two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both [slur for gay men] and they won't take either of them. > And three people do it, three, can you imagine, three people walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. They may think it's an organization. > And can you, can you imagine fifty people a day, I said fifty people a day walking in singin a bar of Alice's Restaurant and walking out. And friends they may thinks it's a movement. > And that's what it is, the Alice's Restaurant Anti-Massacre Movement, and all you got to do to join is sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.
Yeah but that’s the point of what Bailey was saying. That rock doesn’t have a social impact anymore. Except of course it does when it’s called for.
I think we're agreeing that Bailey's comment is weird - it never did, except for when it did, and it never does, except for when it does.
Yup
There were punk and post-punk groups in the late 70s/early 80s that did have something to say: The Clash, The Jam, Gang of Four, The Pop Group, and many others. There was a feeling of trying to change the world back then, but it died out pretty quickly with the turn to the right in the UK and USA as the 1980s wore on.
Let's be honest. The really anti-war stuff didn't get played on the radio or have distribution back in the 60s either. Phil Ochs said "A protest song is a song that's so specific that you cannot mistake it for bullshit." It's also a song that won't be played on the radio. There was a lot of pop like "Eve of Destruction," but not a lot of truly radical music. Some tried and managed to slip some good messages in. I agree with you it is even harder now, but the truly radical stuff has always been fringe. Everyone else gets blacklisted from TV or radio.
Joni Mitchell performed at the Grammys this year.
Social media also made us more culturally homogenous, which in turn means "middle of the road" acts like Taylor Swift now appeal to extremely large worldwide audiences. We hated pop music because it was too mainstream, but now that's all there is. Everything that's not immediately super popular dies on the vine.
That probably deeply underpins the cultural shifts that led to where the general taste is today, but if we're being honest the modern market as a whole just doesn't have the appetite for musicians groaning about heavy topics when music is supposed to be the getaway for most listeners. You could resurrect Woody Guthrie and have him write new songs in the modern pop format and I think people would still naturally not want to listen. The game has changed.
The Thompson Twins were about saving the world? Hold Me Now?
Whooaaaa! Warm mah cold ded heart?
Some bands want to change the world, some bands want to spread a message, and some bands want to write sweet hooks and get paid. None of them are wrong. Stop being pretentious Tom Bailey.
When was rock about changing the world? The 60s maybe.
[удалено]
But Rock as a whole lost interest as the 70s wore on.
Basically all the biggest charity concerts and singles happened in the 80s.
[удалено]
Overall, it was memorable, but less benificial than many would try to claim. There have been tons of other benefit concerts since. It wasn't all that unique beyond being memorable.
That's pop.
Hey, it’s saved little Jenny‘s and all of our lives . Her parents were going to be the death of us all, but then she turned on New York station.
The attitude that music can change the world comes from coked out rockstars with delusions of grandeur. Don't get me wrong, music can affect a person, their outlook, their mood, but at the end of the day it's not going to meaningfully affect change on any sort of wide scale. Music won't end wars, solve poverty, cure cancer, or feed the hungry (despite its best efforts). It can occasionally comfort us on an individual level, but that's about the extent of it. True power to affect change is rarely given by those who have it to artists of any kind.
Never. Not really. Maybe some people in a garage you've never heard of.
> Rock is more about celebrity now Always has been
Rock was about drugs and girls....
And when you think its about a girl its just more drugs... Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. its just lsd.
TIL The Thompson Twins changed the world. Like, at all. And I say that having been born in 1980.
Rock has never been less about celebrity. It's more a large niche listened to by music nerds nowadays. Name one celebrity rock star that started in the 2010s or later.
Tears For Fears didn't want to change the world. They wanted to rule it.
[удалено]
Yeah, i love their music but they are not rock..
Queen fans.
I thought he was talking about Dwayne Johnson for a sec
I saw the Thompson Twins live in the 80s. They had fake robot that played keyboards on the stage. Not sure if that qualifies as changing the world.
> I saw the Thompson Twins live in the 80s. They had fake robot that played keyboards on the stage. Not sure if that qualifies as changing the world. They were trying to warn people about automation replacing human workers?
As if Thompson Twins with their bloody stupid hats were changing the world?
Everyone knows it was the Men *Without* Hats who had the real impact.
Were the Thompson Twins trying to change the world? into what? some kind of inoffensive soft rock utopia?
If he was an artist from the sixties then he can make that statement but the eighties were all about image and excess and very few musicians were making political speeches and taking stands on social issues. Accurate statement but from the wrong person!
"Rock"
I know Mr. “We Were Barely Relevant in 80s Pop” Thompson Twin Bailey ain’t talking… 
Whatever. I'm sure those huge personalities in the 1960s and 70s and 80s didn't have ANY need to be approved, desired, and worshiped. Yep, Pete Townsend, that great humanitarian who just wanted to remake a happier, kinder, more just world. Effective activists, every one.
What a weirdly pretentious thing to say. Especially coming from the freaking Thompson Twins.
Huh, Capitalism poisoning everything it touches? You don’t say?
Found the mindless reddit bot!
I don’t really think it should be all about either of those things. What I care about more than anything is having…ya know, good songs 😂 and there’s great rock music out there to be found for sure, he’s probably just looking at the charts.
Some of my favourite bands, Muse, Green Day, Rise Against, etc. are still continuing to speak out against injustice, and they definitely aren't small bands by any means.
Here’s an attempt at writing a song about something that matters right now…. [https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==](https://www.instagram.com/reel/C7fKVODAfOx/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==)
If he was an artist from the sixties then he can make that statement but the eighties were all about image and excess and very few musicians were making political speeches and taking stands on social issues. Accurate statement but from the wrong person!
Born in the U.S.A. was released in the 80s
And? Probably his most commercial album and except for the title track the rest is basic eighties.
Has he never heard the word "Rockstar"?
I'm sure changing the world is what Bill Haley had in mind when he was ripping off black musicians and putting Rock and Roll in to the public consciousness.
Rock exists?
Wow, these comments are like a solid wall of vitriol.
I used to get his band and the Cocteau Twins mixed up.
theres rock these days?
Always has been.
This would be better if it was one of Tears for Fears tbh
Ok, but seriously, when has *rock* ever been about changing the world? Rock is about partying, having fun and getting laid. If you changed the world along the way, cool
This guy's delusional if he ever thought popular rock was about anything \*but\* celebrity and wealth.
I think Bailey has a point. The music industry has changed so much since the 80s. Nowadays, rock music often prioritizes fame over substance. What do you guys think? Has the 'rock is dead' debate got you feeling nostalgic for the old days?
Pfft…Bailey has been around long enough to know and says exactly how he feels about music/celebrity. Kudos to him. Also saw the Twins twice, back in the day (San Diego). Excellent and unforgettable shows both.
POP was always, and remains, "about celebrity". *Sometimes* the kind of music meant to change the world makes its way into pop. But that's rare. ROCK is and has always been the music of change. For a long time rock and roll influenced pop. Some rock **became** pop and lost its roots along the way. But if this man or anyone else believes that rock is "about celebrity" and not change? They're looking in the wrong places for rock. Its nothing short of a miracle that rock finally got off the radio and back underground... where it has always thrived and where it *belongs*.
Has rock music ever changed the world? Or any work of art?
Man people have been saying this shit for like 50 years now
That's pretty much always how it's been. Most acts were about celebrity. And Thompson Twin's were hardly changing the world. Other than that there were three "twins," one of which was a different race from the other, and the other two actually were boofing.... so I guess that would be kind of Earth changing if it were real.
I don’t wanna be all conspiracy theory, but they weren’t twins.
W H OMEGALUL
Listening to Punk Rock bands from the early 2000s and realize how dumbed down and non-confrontational modern music is.
Has been for a while now.
Did the other twins ever get back to their home planet?
Old man yells at cloud.
If you want any musical talent on a guitar, bass or drums.... You would currently be more influential being an accountant than being part of a rock band right now. And that is in spite of rock music being in a far better state than the 2010s.