Tag: politics

Posted on

Acid House and the Iron Lady

The Second Summer of Love is a name attributed to the period between 1988 and 1989 where the rise of MDMA and acid house resulted in an explosion in youth culture, and complete resistance to the rise of oppressive conservative politics .

In the autumn of 1989 a very interesting letter came across the desk of a third term Lady Margaret Thatcher. MP Archibald Gavin Hamilton forwarded a letter on behalf of his great uncle Gerald Coke who had become extremely disturbed by an all-night rave party hosted near the outside of his property.  Not only did Coke share a misinformed fear of confrontation but also described his fear of “bloodshed.”

Coke could not be any farther from the reality of this rave, one of 223 known acid house parties during the Second Summer of Love. These underground, mostly illegal parties were marked by the prevalent use of MDMA, also known by the more descriptive name of ecstasy. The feelings of empathy, euphoria and love caused by ecstasy were marked features of these gatherings, and resulted in incredibly low instances of violence.

The ecstasy and music came together. It was all part of the package… That may sound a little sad, but there’s no way acid house would have taken off the way it did without ecstasy.

 

-Nicky Holloway, DJ

Government research into these parties led to the shocking discovery of “very little alcohol use” and the prevalence of discarded “ecstasy wrappers;” whatever that means… What the government feared more so than public health, was the gathering of young people, of all races and backgrounds, in a defiance of conservative attitudes and politics of the time.

“Because a few people had the power to assemble thousands of young people with a phone call, the government thought there was a political angle to it when there wasn’t.”
Andrew Weatherall , English DJ, producer, and remixer.

Thatchers brand of conservatism was akin to the U.S.’s Reaganism.  An era marked by the triumph of imperialism, offensive against the working class, increased international military aggression, rise in poverty and the exponential growth of ruling class wealth.  Military invasions of Latin America, the fight against Irish Liberation movements and an overall interest in the elite over British workers are just some of the calling cards which have been attributed to Thatcher.

Prime Minister Thatcher became notorious for her no-frills political style and willingness to oppress individual rights of expression in order to protect the  ruling class. In 1988 she introduced a broadcasting  ban on left-wing political views in six countries. In 1982 Thatcher directly ordered the sinking of an Argentine ship, outside of fighting area, in a conflict to protect imperial interests in the area.

In 1981 Britain saw the rise of a social rebellion. Unequal social conditions and high levels of unemployment created pressure to address segregation and opportunity for the youth. Thatcher however rejected the idea that social conditions had any influence on the unrest.

“What absolute nonsense. … No one should condone violence. No one should condone the events. … They were criminal, criminal.”

Margaret Thatcher, in response to the resistance of the Black Caribbean population in Brixton subject to immense police brutality

Her politics and ruling style were considered so oppressive and lacking any interest in its people that her death in 2013 was celebrated by thousands throughout England.

Thatcherism was at its most powerful when Acid House jumped the pond from the underground music scene of Chicago, it first landed on the Island of Ibiza before five major English DJs brought it over to Britain. In celebration of Paul Oakenfold’s 24th birthday, Johnny Walker, Danny Rampling, Nicky Holloway and Oakenfold himself had massive revelation at the iconic Amnesia nightclub. They returned home with a drive to recreate the incredible experience. The sounds and culture of acid house quickly took over the underground music scene in England, much more so than it ever did in the U.S.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCUPc9zVfyo

Acid House had been playing in Haçienda nightclub in England since 1986 but it wasn’t until the introduction of MDMA in 1987 that the new style began to take. “It was like a tidal wave across the club from their alcove. Suddenly everyone was on ecstasy. I could stop a record and put my hands in the air, and the place would erupt.”Ecstasy also affected what people wore. “It’s quite endearing looking back now,” says DJ Dave Haslam.

When met with the stern and austere rule of Prime Minister Thatcher, the freedom, unity and escape that the rave provided became a de facto form of resistance and delegitimization of Thatcher’s influence and control over the youth of England.  Symbols like the yellow smiley face, whistles and baggy clothes now became synonymous with rave culture and Acid House, a clear resistance to the conservatism of the time.

Thatcher, much like Trump in recent months, utilized the arts and music to elevate the elitist concert experience above the expression and freedom of various disciplines. She utilized the works of Andrew Lloyd Weber, and placed them upon a pedestal as the clear forerunner in artistic and musical expression. Much like Trump, she was very misinformed when it came to the nature and underlying message of the works she chose to champion, In doing so, Thatcher strengthened the political message, legitimacy and social revolution of the New Romantics, Socca producers of South London and DJs throughout the country. 

The government met the social revolution with limited success. Unable to seize profits because the rave gatherings were mostly free, the government found its only solution in banning the music all together and Thatcher’s immediate successor did just that.

“Rave was more about unity … and, unlike other scenes, there weren’t really any faces from the scene for society to grab on to and scapegoat, which must have been frustrating for the government and media at the time. Because it was kind of this big, inclusive faceless mass, I also feel like the social pressures that got people seeking a release from rave did a lot of good things to make the racial divide less of a divide.”

Gavin Watson

By 1994 legislation had been passed banning music with “repetitive beats” and outdoor gatherings with more than 12 people where amplified music would be played. In a shocking, under the radar political statement, artists like Autechre released electronic music, which was labeled as having “no bars contain identical beats ” a music which could legally be played under this new law.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fk0JxXFJMKw

Acid House became the anthem for a new generation of liberal, socially conscious individuals that continue to shape England to this day. The generation that found and elevated Rave culture into the realm of political resistance to this day finds itself across England, taking the ideas of empathy, love and freedom that defined the Summer of Love. Despite the efforts of an oppressive, conservatism government  House music and rave culture are still powerful drivers of culture throughout England and its realm of influence.

 

 

Posted on

Karel Husa and the Paradox of Prague

Records of distinct nationalist identity in music have existed since the before the middle ages. And, until approximately the 17th century, the majority of music composition was virtually inseparable from the church, which was virtually inseparable from the state. Thus, nationalism has always been a lens through which to look at the unfading marriage of music and politics. The 20th century musical stage in particular was flooded with nationalist compositions in response to territorial conflicts and as a reaction to oppressive regimes. Karel Husa’s Music for Prague 1968, is a politically motivated composition that reveals a paradox in nationalist music.

Karel Husa was born in Prague, Czechoslovakia in 1921, and later emigrated to the United States. Music for Prague 1968 was written shortly after the Soviet Union crushed the Prague Spring reform movement in Czechoslovakia in August, 1968. When Husa heard of the events that occurred in Prague over the radio, he was deeply moved. The piece serves as a memoriam to the victims of USSR violence, as well as a call for Czech identity.

The work includes a Hussite hymn, which blatantly creates an element of Czech nationalism. The Czech hymn that Husa uses, originally a war song from the 15th century, is titled “Ye Who Are Warriors of God.” It had previously been known for its use in Dvorak’s nationalist composition “Hussite Overture,” and there is no doubt that Husa’s choice to integrate the hymn is due to the tune’s overtly nationalistic connotation. One of the lines from the hymn reads, “Ye warriors of God, if you believe in the future, things will be better in the future.”

Music for Prague 1968 therefore reveals a paradox of nationalist music. In the piece, the Hussite hymn partially represents “solidarity and resistance”. On one hand, Husa is supporting his country by means of using traditional Czech music. The words of the allude to being willing to sacrificing oneself for one’s country and having hope for the well being of it. On the other hand, he is using the hymn to beckon back to a time before Soviet control- or even before the existence of a modern communist state. Hence, the composer is effectively attacking and bolstering his beloved country simultaneously; Music for Prague 1968 seems to portray that Husa is both proud and ashamed of his homeland. This leads to the conclusion that a nation is not characterized by any one political period, and that composers can praise all the good things about a nation while still speaking out against current events.

One of the essential requirements for nationalist music, is a broad audience; the point of such music is for a composer to share his or her feelings about their country with others. Husa’s conviction to write Music for Prague 1968 was also a conviction to share his thoughts about larger political ideas. One interesting source that provides commentary on the intended audience of music, and specifically politically driven music, is the article “Does ‘Music Trump Politics’?” by Ted Gordon. Gorgon quotes Dennis Prager as controversially saying, “Great music should transcend political differences.” Like many members of the Classical music world, I strongly disagree with Prager’s logic. Not only does this way of thinking nullify the point of nationalist music, it also pushes a limitation onto art as a whole. Though not all music is political, some pieces of art are meant to be derisive; Husa’s Music for Prague 1968 was not thought highly of by the Communist government of Czechoslovakia. Furthermore, there is a distinction between the reason for composition (perhaps to speak out against a certain person) and its objective face value meaning to a listener (maybe a piece written to shame a dictator is enjoyable to listen to even by the dictator himself). For example, Shostakovich’s 5th symphony subtly condemns the violence of the USSR, and yet it was praised by the Stalin regime; while this composition is politically influenced, at face value, everyone can appreciate them, included the party against which it was written.

In relation to Husa’s Music for Prague 1968, I think the intended audience is the people of democratic nations, to whom it serves a warning of oppressive regimes. One generally conclusion that Music for Prague 1968 demonstrates is that there can be a paradoxical balance of critique and patriotism that constitutes nationalism. And on a larger scale, Husa himself later reflected in an L.A. Times interview, “I don’t think of [Music for Prague 1968] as a political message for one country… It is universal.”

Posted on

We Didn’t Start the Fire

Although Billy Joel’s hit song, “We Didn’t Start the Fire” wasn’t intended to become a deeply political song, people found it to be extremely telling and honest.  In an interview, Billy Joel states that he tries to stay out of politics.  In another interview he talks about how he thought the song wasn’t very good because the melody was terrible.  He said that he just started writing down major events in chronological order.  In general I think it’s a good idea for musicians to avoid being involved with politics as much as they can.  If a musician wants to get involved, more power to them, but it’s certainly easier to avoid becoming involved.  Even at Eastman, I find that there are a lot of political events happening behind the scenes that have potential to affect students negatively.  There are politics with part assignments, paychecks, international students, relations with other schools, funding, scholarships, etc.  Heck, there could be a (biased because I wrote it) song just about the living situations in the dorms:

 

Leaking roof, moldy showers,

rats, expired orange juice,

res life, piss bottles,

throw up in the halls.

 

Smelly washers, used condoms,  

mental illness, fire alarms

Burned a candle, on probation,

The Elevator’s broken

We don’t want to live here

We have to buy it and we can not fight it

We don’t want to live here

We have to buy it and we can not fight it

 

The list could go on forever.  Once students become involved with politics they usually end up having to sacrifice time and energy they could be using for becoming better people and musicians.  So, most of the time when musicians are sucked into politics they don’t have as much energy to focus on a musical career.  A lot composers and artists use politics as inspiration though.  For example Shostakovich wrote a lot of music as a satire on Russian leaders.  Eminem does the same thing in his song, “Role Model”.  Eminem and Shostakovich  refer to events in their music, but the difference is that Billy Joel’s song is unbiased.   What makes that so cool is that people can interpret the song however they want.  Billy Joel isn’t very public about controversial topics and he doesn’t apply negative or positive connotations in the lyrics.  So, people could take the lyrics, “Birth control, Ho Chi Minh, Richard Nixon back again/Moonshot, Woodstock, Watergate, punk rock” and say that he is against birth control and Nixon.  Or they could say he thinks birth control and the moon landing is great but Nixon and Punk Rock is now.  There are many ways to interpret this song depending on the listener’s personal view.  In my unprofessional opinion I think that he is liberal simply because is seems like rock stars tend to be more open minded towards topics like gay marriage, abortion/birth control, immigration, etc.

In the song, Billy Joel mentions not only negative events but positive events.  He sings about vaccines, Prokofiev, James Dean, Einstein, Marilyn Monroe, and many other famous people.  What’s interesting is that all of these people were icons and held a lot of power in politics due to the fact that they had a large audience.  Some people, like Prokofiev were directly involved with politics.  Even though it’s probably easier for musicians to stay out of politics, it seems impossible for famous artists to stay out of the spotlight when they have such large influence.  By writing this song, it seems like Billy joel is signalling his interest in politics.  Why would someone write this kind of song if they didn’t have something to say about the topics?  It seems like people in general tend to signify what their views are and their thoughts either through talking or by reacting to something.  I think this is especially true with musicians.  Whenever we play something we find a way to relate to it so that we can express something we think or feel.  This is just what Billy Joel is doing.  He’s writing something he can relate to and knows about which resulted in something a lot of people related to.  

 

Role Model:

This song is timeless because it makes people think.  While it’s mostly un relatable to people who didn’t live through the era, it’s a simple form that can be applied to any era.  I even found a couple “We didn’t Start the Fire 2017” editions online:

Version One:

George Bush, Noriega, Batman, Genesis by Sega

MC Hammer, Kuwait, Long Dong Silver Hi Ho

Wayne’s World, Right Said Fred, Cross Colours, Gennifer Flowers giving head

Hurricane Andrew, Somalia, Joey Buttafuoco

Tonya Harding, Kurt Cobain, Forrest Gump, “Insane in the Membrane”

Newt Gingrich, Pulp Fiction, OJ got away

Chupacabra, AOL, Bob Dole, “Macarena” goes to hell

Beanie Babies, Spice Girls, Jon Benet Ramsey

[chorus]

Seinfeld, Monica Lewinsky, Backstreet Boys, Elian set free

Y2K, hipster chic, Cheney’s first name is Dick

Ralph Nader, “Who Let the Dogs Out,” Florida recount

Anthrax letters, 9/11, world’s gone sick

Sopranos, Al Queda, Bin Laden playa hater

Lord of the Rings, Napster, Afghanistan

Condaleezza, Kobe/Shaq, Bush lies about Iraq

Napoleon Dynamite, John Kerry, and Lindsay Lohan

[chorus]

TomKat, Kanye West, New Orleans gets wet

MySpace, Prius, President Barack Obama

iPhones, housing bubble, bank bailout, Kardashian trouble

Sarah Palin, global warming, GMOs, Octomama

Guantamano, Arab Spring, Paul Ryan, LeBron wins a ring

Obamacare, Killer Drones, Lady Gaga, Game of Thrones

Fukushima, Hunger Games, books of binders women names

Selfies, twerking, Jersey Shore, I can’t take it anymore!

 

Another 2017 version:

Stephen Bannon, KKK, homophobics, woke baes

Trans-Pacific, Gallup polling, Putin’s puppet show

Trump is worse than Richard Nixon, addicted to his television

North Korea, South Korea, “Little Marco”

 

Lyin’ Ted, atom bombs, refreshing browsers all day long

FAKE NEWS, spreading lies, a crowd that falsely multiplies

So-called judges, fake tears, Muslim BAN, stoking fears

Paul Ryan, KFC, Scotch tape on a neck tie!

 

We didn’t start the fire

Now the planet’s burning

And we’re anti-learning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

 

Refugees, Russian hacks, FBI, alt-facts

Richard Spencer, Kellyanne, L.L. Bean stock

Ivanka’s tanking fashion line, Melania who plagiarized

Rick Rolls, taco bowls, Obamacare block

John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Congress doesn’t have a plan

Bathrobes, emoluments, time to GET SMART!

Women’s March, pussy hats, tiny hands, Democrats

Orange face, hair disgrace, “glam room” in the White House

 

We didn’t start the fire

Now the planet’s burning

And we’re anti-learning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

 

Bowling Green, Iraq, Wikileaks, Big Macs,

Tax returns, First Amendment, Julian Assange

Private server email, Black Lives Matter, third rail

Neo-Nazis, Liar Spice, SNL’s not very nice

NBC, CNN, voter fraud, Marine LePen, Hamilton, viral memes, is this all a bad dream?

Mike Pence, hashtags, late-night #MAGA Twitter brags

Rogue accounts, Sally Yates, church is melding into state.

 

We didn’t start the fire

Now the planet’s burning

And we’re anti-learning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

 

Hannity, Infowars, urinating Russian whores

Filibuster, VERY SAD, Yemen raid DISASTER!

Mar-a-lago golf carts, Brexit, lawsuits, Breitbart

Patriots, protests, bathroom bills, policing sex

Pope Francis, Facebook feed, corporate lobbies, rampant greed

Common sense, equal pay, what else do I have to say?

 

We didn’t start the fire

Now the planet’s burning

And we’re anti-learning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

 

Birth control, thin skin, Scott Baio’s a has-been

Scientists, gun rights, DeVos was some pick

Netanyahu, Palestine, Dakota Access Pipeline

Made a “bad deal” with Iran, crumbling Afghanistan

 

Feuding friends, Jared K., golden toilets, Doomsday

Foreign debts, homeless vets, super-bugs, Trump regrets

Plastic garbage washed ashore, U.S. flirts with martial law

Schwarzenegger ratings wars, I can’t take it anymore!

 

We didn’t start the fire

Now the planet’s burning

And we’re anti-learning

We didn’t start the fire

No we didn’t light it

But we tried to fight it

So, I think what makes this piece have so much impact is the honesty and it’s power to make people think about what is happening around them.  In the “Music Trumps Politics” article we read about, it says that “Lamell’s invitation was explicitly intended to create a new group of people for desiring, and taking pleasure in, classical music–a pleasure, according to Lamell, that is apolitical”.  Like the author of the article, I disagree.  I think it is virtually impossible for music to be apolitical.  The artist can write or perform a song intended to be removed from politics, but they can’t stop their audiences from making their own interpretations on their music just like “We Didn’t Start the Fire”.  It wasn’t intended to be super political, but there are copious amounts of articles and websites dedicated to decoding the events and politics in the song.

 

Betsy Devos Brochure (?)

Handlebars by Flobots:

Handlebars is another example of popular music addressing politics!

Posted on

Victor Jara

As musicians, sometimes we get to experience our art, but other times we sacrifice ourselves for it. Victor Jara, a Chilean musician, teacher, and strong political activist “used to play guitar and write folk songs. But a soldier chopped his hands with an axe and machine gunned him to death so he couldn’t play guitar anymore.”  When I first read this sentence from Andrew Tyler’s article I was in shock. It’s heartbreaking when politics get violent, and innocent people lose their lives. Victor Jara’s death stands for democratic social change in Chile. Even though he died for what he believed in, his music and spirit both still live on today. 

 

Victor Jara started out singing in the neighborhoods of Chile as a 1960’s protest folk singer for human rights. He was a member of the New Chilean Song Movement, and was a supporter of the socialist Salvador Allende. Salvador Allende was the president elected in 1970 who initiated many social programs. During the election season, Jara wrote a song for Allende’s movement titled Venceremos, which translates to We Shall Triumph.

Prior to the election in 1970 the United States CIA ran propaganda campaigns to discredit Allende, showing the United States dissatisfaction with his new government.  According to interviews with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now, Allende planned to nationalize private United States corporations. The Allende government of Chile wanted to negotiate how

to compensate the United States corporations so they would finally leave Chile. In particular, the main telephone company of Chile, and the owner of Sheraton Hotels ,  ITT Corporation.  Henry Kissinger and Nixon refused these negotiations and planned a violent “coup” in 1973.  Bill Clinton declassified the CIA documents showing that the CIA trained DINA (secret police) invaded a helicopter, and murdered the Commander in chief of the Chilean armed forces. Allende eventually committed suicide and the brutal dictator Augusto Pinochet, took control of Chile.  

Chile was not in great shape during this time in history. More interviews with Democracy Now tell the story of Victor Jara’s death. He was arrested along with thousands.  (30,000 had been referred to as “the disappeared”) He was singing to the people in the Santiago soccer stadium where the executions were taking place. According to Democracy Now, as his wife described what happened, he was well  recognized and one soldiers said “that one is for me. He was tortured, in particular his hands smashed so he couldn’t play guitar. He was shot and his body was recognized after being dragged on the streets and claimed by his wife when a friend informed her a week after the coup that his body was at the morgue. He wrote one last poem that night in the stadium to document what happened.  It was somehow smuggled out of the stadium and eventually put to music by Pete Seeger. 

Victor Jara, saw what was happening politically in Chile and decided to take action by sharing his art. He incorporated his beliefs through his musical creations to promote peace, but the government silenced him. If I’ve learned anything from Victor Jara’s story, it’s that he has inspired many other artists to stand up for what they believe in. Politics always try to control what we do, but in the end music continued to fight back with creativity and truth.

http://www.vjvive.com/?page_id=14

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/sep/18/victor-jara-pinochet-chile- rocks-backpages

https://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/29/former_chilean_army_officer_found_liable

https://www.democracynow.org/1999/10/8/documentary_on_legendary_chilean_protest_singer

http://www.angelfire.com/ca3/jphuck/BOOK3Ch3Part5.html

 

 

 

Posted on

Lingering Discord: K-Pop Star Vs. Politics

K-Pop. What can be said which already hasn’t been said? K-Pop, or Korean Pop, has become a music sensation spanning the entire globe, destroying the cultural barriers separating the West and Eastern hemispheres. With upbeat rhythms, insane choreography,

and overall presentation, it’s no wonder that K-Pop has become the global phenomenon it is currently today. However, it’s all ingrained in a fog of limbo between music and politics. Tiffany Hwang[1], a budding K-Pop artist and member of the popular group “Girls’ Generation”, made a critical mistake due to her lack of knowledge in cross country tensions and almost led to the end of her career.

Before getting into any form of politics, some important historical background of Korea is needed. During the early 1900’s, specifically from 1910-1945, Japan placed Korea under colonial rule and tensions were high between the two countries. Japanese occupation was ruthless as any of amount of freedom was severely limited. Koreans were forced to ban their own native language in schools, and were even demanded to change their names to Japanese, with a whole 80% of the populace complying with their demands.[2] However, the biggest atrocity to come out of Japanese occupation was the use of “comfort women”; essentially Korean women who were used as sexual slaves for Japanese soldiers.

Korean Comfort Women

This caused an immense rift between the two countries, one which still lasts to this day. In this article,[3] Jazeera writes “But they [Japanese] misjudged how deeply ingrained the issue is in South Korean society.” This single quote demonstrates the decades long strained relationship between both Korean and Japan.

Now, why include historical background when discussing K-Pop? It’s due to the fact that something as worldwide and influential as K-Pop cannot escape the grasp of past misdoings and politics. First, let me point out that K-Pop as a medium is extremely successful in East Asian countries, especially in Japan. KARA, a five member girl group, was able to generate a whopping $60 million dollars of revenue in Japanese CD and DVD sales alone on their 2011 tour.

The five members of KARA

On the surface, this seems like a simple transaction of cultural exchange and in way, it is. There was no ill intent both by the members of KARA and the Japanese audience. However, while the same could be said of Tiffany Hwang, the reception was drastically different and demonstrated the lingering political tensions between Korea and Japan. During Girls’ Generation’s tour in Japan during August 2016, Hwang posted several pictures on Snapchat with the Japanese Imperial Flag, serving as a way for her fans to know her current location.

This act in itself poses no political outcry and was just an innocent way of communicating between performer and audience. The problem comes from the fact that she posted these pictures on Korea’s Liberation Day.[4] As the name implies, this was the day when Korea broke free from Japanese occupation, liberated by both United States and Soviet Union forces. Due to the dense history between the two East Asian countries, this act by Hwang was deemed incredibly offensive to the Korean populace, especially on their day of liberation. Hwang was able to delete the pictures in a quick three minutes, but it was far too late: “Her career literally came to a halt,”[5] with sponsorships and television roles being taken from her instantly. In a way, this story correlates with Colin Kaepernick’s refusal to stand during “The Star-Spangled Banner”, albeit with differing connotations. In an article from The New Yorker, Kaepernick says, ““I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color.”[6] This type of mindset is reminiscent of the people of Korea in how the Japanese Imperial Flag represents the same type of oppression Kaepernick himself feels. The Imperial flag is a symbol of inhumane oppression and is shrouded in decades of dark history and in Kaepernick’s mind, the United States shares this trait. It is also important to note that Kaepernick’s own devotion to protest the anthem is different than Hwang’s unknowing mistake; one was purposeful and the other was accidental. However, the theme of oppression is apparent in both and demonstrates the correlation between both stories.

In my mind, both Kaepernick and the people of Korea are justified in their reactions. I believe Blake put it well when he used the phrase “us and them” in his blogpost. In Kaepernick’s position, he was protesting against the history of the United States and the recent events which painted the country’s flag as a symbol of oppression; a fight between minority vs. majority. In Hwang’s position, it was almost as if the people of Korea were asking her the question, “Japan or us”. Hwang’s mistake essentially cements the idea that K-Pop stars are not immune to such scrutiny, especially with their celebrity status in Korea. Politics, those especially concerning Japan, are still touchy subjects and possesses the power to bring down the cultural powerhouse of K-Pop should the opportunity arise.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiffany_Hwang

[2] http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/main_pop/kpct/kp_koreaimperialism.htm

[3] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/south-korea-world-longest-protest-comfort-women-170908024721239.html

[4] https://www.army.mil/article/192286/korean_national_liberation_day

[5] http://thepolitic.org/when-pop-music-goes-nuclear-the-explosive-politics-of-k-pop-in-asia/

[6] https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/colin-kaepernick-and-the-radical-uses-of-the-star-spangled-banner

Posted on

“Back In the USSR”: Parody or Political Statement?

In early 1968 , The Beatles went on a meditation retreat in Rishikesh, India. They aimed to study Transcendental Meditation with their guru Maharishi, and eventually become teachers of this craft. Mike Love, from the Beach Boys, was also on this trip.

The Beatles with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Love recalls  “sitting at the breakfast table and McCartney came down with his acoustic guitar and he was playing ‘Back In The U.S.S.R.’ and I told him that what you ought to do is talk about the girls all around Russia, The Ukraine and Georgia. [Paul] was plenty creative not to need any lyrical help from me but I gave him the idea for that little section”. McCartney did in fact take Love’s suggestion and wrote about admiring girls from Georgia, Ukraine, and Moscow, all locations represented in the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics).

Album Sleeve

 

A performance of “Back in the USSR” by the Beatles

 

“Back to the USSR” represents influence and power that music has in creating political controversy. When the song was released in 1968, America was at war with Vietnam. Because Russia supported the Viet Cong, conservative Americans immediately rejected this song, believing the Beatles were sympathizing with the enemy and promoting communism. The lyrics to this song fueled anger in Americans, especially the John Birch Society, who were particularly offended by the lines “You don’t know how lucky you are, boys”.

Additionally, this song caused controversy in Russia. Rock and roll was not respected at the time and the Beatles were not either. This said, Back in the USSR became wildly popular in Russia, and people sought to listen to the song even from tapes smuggled into the country. Elton John performed the song in Moscow a year after Americans had boycotted the 1980 Summer Olympics in Russia and wrote “they went ape s—. It was like playing ‘Philadelphia Freedom’ in Philadelphia”. The fact that there was such varied reactions to this song only made it more controversial.

Paul McCartney argues the claims of this song being politically charged by explaining this song as a parody of Chuck Berry’s hit “Back in the USA”.

McCartney says “I just liked the idea of Georgia girls…and talking about places like the Ukraine as if they were California, you know?…Its a jokey song, but it’s also become a bit of an anthem now…In my mind its just about a [Russian] spy who’s been in America for a long time and he’s become very American but when he gets back to the USSR he’s saying ‘Leave it ‘til tomorrow to unpack my case, Honey, disconnect the phone’”. It is interesting that McCartney had to defend himself for attempting to humanize young people on the other side of the world, and was also forced to defend the feeling of pride and comfort when a person returns home.

Performance of “Back In the USA” by Chuck Berry

 

In the article “Colin Kaepernick and the Radical Uses of the Star Spangled Banner”, Robin writes “Our national symbols are always more complicated than their original myths”. Kneeling at a football game to illuminate long-standing racism is viewed as a disrespectful and criminal act amongst conservatives. This can relate to Back in the USSR. Just as kneeling down during the Star Spangled Banner has become a controversial symbol of a larger national issue, Back in the USSR developed into a symbol of controversy during a time when a war was taking place . A parody song aiming to humanize non-American young people became a highly political debate.

This topic is very relevant to our class so far because we have focused so much on audience reception, the power of change and imitation, and how composers adapted to political ideals or brought to light political issues in their music. Politics and music will always be intertwined because politics inspires the cultural environment. As music is a pillar of culture, it is fair to say that these two will always have a powerful connection.

Posted on

Musicians During the Great Depression

How important is it for artists to create or play music that is personal to them? Artists during the Great Depression were hired to be in the WPA by the American Government in the 1930s. They were paid to write and play music that lifted the spirits of a poor nation, that showed patriotism and pride in the US. Orchestras would play selections from the European classics as well, but were always required to play music from an American composer. These American composers were heavily influenced to write in as American of a style as possible, with the overall goal of ending the Depression.

The WPA began on May 6th, 1935 by the Franklin D. Roosevelt administration. The purpose of the Works Progress Administration was to give jobs to Americans during the Great Depression. This was part of FDR’s New Deal, and the idea was to put the Americans to work being creative and uplifting the spirits in the nation. Eleanor Roosevelt was a major influence on FDR to create jobs for Americans in their field where they could be paid, this was very important for boosting the pride and self confidence of Americans. The WPA had many branches to it, and the one for musicians was called the FMP (Federal Music Project). The FMP hired all sorts of musicians including teachers, orchestral players, chamber music players, jazz musicians, singers, composers, etc. It was a bit of a struggle to get classical musicians to support American music at the time, because there was a huge appreciation for European music. Since the WPA was made to create American jobs and focus on American success, it was very important to the US government to insist on a certain amount of the music to be composed by American composers.

One of these American Composers hired by the WPA was Aaron Copland. Many composers of this time were pretty far left on the political scale, and Copland was not necessarily an exception although he didn’t seem to be an activist. During this war and anti-communist period, the political party in power was the Democratic Party but it was on the conservative side, so as not to appear socialist. This made far leftist musicians not the majority, although the majority of artists and intellectuals were interested in socialist values. Despite some political differences, the WPA still hired musicians based on merit more-so than political ideology (although there were a few cases where the government would not fund a show if it had “inappropriate” content, such as in the play The Cradle Will Rock by Marc Blitzstein). Copland was very popular among the population and the government. He created the sound that we associate “American” music with now. Some of his most famous pieces include Rodeo, Billy The Kid, and Appalachian Spring. He used many American folk tunes to create nationalist music, very similar to how European composers wrote their nationalist music. For example, Appalachian Spring is heavily influenced by Stravinsky’s Rite of Spring because of its use of authentic national music.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVahuS9hk_s

The question that I have to ask about this program; did it cause composers and musicians to write or play music they wouldn’t naturally have done? And is it the right of the American government to dictate what should be written and played? In the 2017 article Trump is Wrong if He Thinks Symphonies are Superior, Mr. Tommasini writes that President Trump believes that Western music was far superior to specifically Radical-Islamic cultures, essentially encouraging American classical composers to write music to show how much better we are than other cultures. Many politicians during the Great Depression were so afraid of communism (much like Trump is of Islam), that they wanted music to influence American values to show how different they were from communists. Yet by doing this, they copied what the Soviet Union was doing during the Socialist Realism period. Composers in the Soviet Union, like Shostakovich, were afraid of writing music that wasn’t liked by the government because they could be arrested, so they had to find ways to write music following those rules or at least hiding it so well that no one understood. Copland wasn’t afraid of the government coming to take him away in the middle of the night, but it is possible that composers would fear they wouldn’t have a job if they wrote anti-American music. They had to create something that they didn’t necessarily believe in, especially if they were socialists/communists.

Where is the line that we as musicians shouldn’t cross to remain true to our creative selves? Is it more important to treat music as a job or as an art, or can it be both? I don’t think it is fair to say that Copland was a sellout to the American government, but how much should we allow the government to dictate what we can create as art?

Posted on

The not so crazy Eminem Freestyle.

Earlier this month the BET awards showed a ‘highly controversial’ cypher featuring rapper Eminem bashing Donald Trump. The video can be seen here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LunHybOKIjU

While this naturally received a slew of press, celebrity endorsements, and right-wing hatred, to me it seemed to play into all the ideals that hip-hop has always stood for. Hip-hop, as an urban and traditionally African-American art-form naturally has a liberal agenda, values equality and inclusion, and esp. stands for civil rights (think Public Enemy, N.W.A., Mos Def, etc.). Therefore, while Eminem was definitely audacious (per his usual self) his views were certainly not a surprise given the hip-hop genre’s continued expression of left-wing ideals. In no way do I mean to discredit the ideals associated with hip-hop, in fact I stand with them, but I do mean to say that people getting surprised at a rapper having democratic views, would be like a teacher getting surprised that there students do their blogpost the day beforehand.

Needless to say this politically charged rant was met with cheers among other outspoken advocates for equality. The rap notable stands with Colin Kaepernick with the line “This is for Colin, ball up a fist.” Colin Kaepernick, of course made recent headlines with his refusal to stand for the national anthem at a preseason NFL game. Colin was quoted in an article with The New Yorker, saying that “To me, this is bigger than football, and it would be selfish on my part to look the other way. There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder.” Colin gave a shout out to Eminem showing his support via Eminem was also given props by J. Cole and Lebron James, among many other celebrities.

To me these celebrity endorsements definitely show support for Eminem, but they do little beyond that. These tweets seem to circumvent actually saying anything substantial by merely showing support. I suppose in the Twitter age this is how support is shown, but at some point it makes you wonder when they are actually going to open a serious dialogue about their positions. The entertainment industry as a whole has expressed their disapproval for Trump several times now, but simply talking about it doesn’t seem to be doing much but catching headlines for a few weeks. I suppose what I’m saying is that art in this case Hip-Hop has advocated in attempts to affect social change for some time, but to me and it seems like to Eminem and other celebrities, we want to do more than just talk about social change we want to actually affect social change.

One idea that I think is pertinent to mention in discussing actually affecting social change is the “us and them” mentality, as it plays right into the hands of people who want to divide us. In keeping with the us and them mentality that divides the left and right parties of America respectively, Trump was recently quoted in an article by the New York Times saying “We write symphonies,” and in doing that essentially inferred that the white, right-wing, western world writes symphonies, (the pinnacle of music), and that, as a clear expression of our superior intellect, will help us overcome the barbaric savages we currently fight against (hard sarcasm). Trump’s ideals aren’t so much shocking anymore, but the fascinating thing is the clear connection he is making with music and politics. Our last president, Barrack Obama, was noted as having several rapper’s visit the White House, and said his favorite song of 2015 was Kendrick Lamar’s “how much a dollar cost.” Clearly, showing that president’s use their music choices to represent to the public something about themselves and their ideals. The problem with this and the ‘us and them’ mentality, is that when Obama was bringing rappers into the White House it was met with much contempt by the right wing, and now when Trump references symphonies the New York Times rips him apart in the aforementioned article. I think it is important to stand for what you believe in, but the “I’m right because you’re wrong” mentality I think is only dividing us further. It also isn’t to say that having one party where we all get along is ever going to happen either, as we clearly observed with the U.S.S.R. and socialist realism works of composers of that time. The point isn’t to make everyone fall in line and believe one ideal, but it also isn’t to alienate people and mock their views. We are not all going to get along, but I think if we can come together on some common ground, we could at least open a dialogue, which at this point seems out of the question by left-wing advocates like Eminem, but also by Trump himself.

Further research

Full Lyrics of Eminem’s Cypher

New York Times article about Eminem’s cypher

USA Today article about Eminem’s cypher

For other rapper’s speaking out against Trump, please see Snoop Dogg’s Lavender which was condemned by Trump in an article by the New York Times.