Leftists and pop [Archive]

Hegemonicretribution

27th March 2009, 15:48

I like some pop, but I am very choosy with it. Until recently I was in a really twee indie-pop sort of mood. Think lots of Los Campesinos, Johnny Foreigner, Good Shoes, even to the extent of some Belle and Sebastian.

Pop music that will never make it to the charts can be pretty good, as it is often a lot more honest about what it actually is.

Saying that, I (like everyone) have a few guilty pleasures, such as Right Said Fred's classic song 'deeply dippy.' If you do not know it, then go listen to it.

Rihanna I quite like at times, but I don't think that would apply to Britney or many others. Now The Saturdays are a cut above most, but what I really love at the moment is Katy Perry. Not in a serious obsessive, or even teenage pin-up sort of way, but in more of a post-ironic, innocent and pleasurable sense. 'About you Now' by the Sugababes was a great fucking song, and especially good to exrcise to, the same is true several Katy Perry tracks. In fact I am going to do a crunch work out now to 'hot or cold' :lol: I am so fucking cool right now!

Really though it depends on what you use music for. Pop has a place or it wouldn't be marketable. I don't hate all metal, but I would not listen to it whilst I am working; I would listen to jazz, or 20th century 'classical' Likewise, I would not stick on a lot of radiohead at a house party.

Bottom line; keep an open mind aout all genres. If something hasn't connected with you yet, give it time. Pop is not as terrible as everyone says it is.

ZeroNowhere

27th March 2009, 16:08

Nah, I've been a metalhead for about a year or so longer than I was a socialist. It's not due to ideology, it's due to the fact that pop generally bores and annoys the fuck out of me. But then again, we have Dan Brown fans here, so you should be able to find quite a few fellow poppy people.
Also, as I have already whined, Coldplay had a tour here this week. It was annoying as fuck. "OMG, Coldplay are so sophisticated and meanigful!" "Yes, and their singer is sooo hot!" Fuck you.

scarletghoul

27th March 2009, 16:13

brigadista

27th March 2009, 18:32

music is a matter of personal choice - i actually sometime listen to the music you like but i really agree with you on the music you dislike, however neither of us is right or wrong-music of all types is for everyone.. we are lucky to have access to such a wide range of music .. i like lots of different types of music and would not condemn anyone for liking music that does not appeal to me

Dr Mindbender

27th March 2009, 18:48

I rarely find anyone that listens to the music i listen to. Is it perhaps due to the ideology that they "discriminate" against mainstream pop?
I like ....... Madonna, Britney Spears etc.

If capitalism made sound, it would be this sort of music ^

Hegemonicretribution

27th March 2009, 18:50

Just a general point on the political content. There was a time when my love of certain types of metal meant that I would look beyond the politics of the band in order to appreciate music for what it was. I still tollerate listening to Wagner, even though politically they are abhorrent, because musically they have something to offer. I can no longer say the same of a lot of metal bands though, for example Slayer. As a teenager I often just listened to the double bass and fast shredding, but I cannot now look beyond the blatant white power sentiments existing in a lot of metal. What they exemplify is done better elsewhere, and with out the anti-semetic/racist connotations.

I am also a little restricted in the Hip hop and rap I can enjoy. When songs have lyrics, it is hard to overcome certain sentiments once you have fully rejected them.

And @ Lol Pot; 'mainstream music' encompasses almost all of the metal/punk that most people listen to. It is marketed as 'niche' so as to appeal to the counter-culture, but it is no more independent or revolutionary than your average Britney Spears track. Album sales, t-shirt sales, poster sales etc. Just because it ain't number one, doesn't mean it ain't big business.

I would urge everyone to go out and listen to local bands, and to discover unsigned music. Support those on their own labels, or without contracts over those who are raking it in.

Sam_b

27th March 2009, 19:11

Think lots of Los Campesinos, Johnny Foreigner, Good Shoes, even to the extent of some Belle and Sebastian.

I wouldn't class those bands as 'pop' really.

Apart from Johnny Foreigner, all those bands are AWESOME. Especially B&S.

Das war einmal

27th March 2009, 22:26

And @ Lol Pot; 'mainstream music' encompasses almost all of the metal/punk that most people listen to. It is marketed as 'niche' so as to appeal to the counter-culture, but it is no more independent or revolutionary than your average Britney Spears track. Album sales, t-shirt sales, poster sales etc. Just because it ain't number one, doesn't mean it ain't big business.

Well its not the same, actually, Metal is a counterculture, metalheads usually dont follow trends and dont give a fuck about physically appearance. Ofcourse there are companies that are making quite a buck out of this counterculture, but its certainly does not have the same level of capitalist interferance. Bands that are in to this scene and are in to it too much for the money, are being critized.

Btw, I dont see many metalbands that are 'white supramacist' I wonder what bands you mean cause the only racist metalgenre I know about is NSBM and a few fucked up bands like screwdriver

Matina

28th March 2009, 05:20

metalheads usually dont follow trends and dont give a fuck about physically appearance.

If you "don't care about your appearance", you are ugly.

Pirate Utopian

28th March 2009, 12:45

I stopped caring about my appearance cause I know I'm sexy already. :cool:
But then I'm not a metalhead.

I'm more into edgy experimental type of music like Captain Beefheart, James Chance, Velvet Underground and PiL.
But hey if you like mainstream music listen to what you wanna listen to.

Das war einmal

28th March 2009, 13:18

If you "don't care about your appearance", you are ugly.

No you are, if you really think that make up and the way you dress make you pretty or ugly you have a nasty character. You should just were the clothes you like and that you are fine by yourself not what is the standard. Same goes for listening to the 'correct' bands. If thats the reason why you are listen to that crappy music than you're just a slave to the system

Das war einmal

28th March 2009, 13:20

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oeblnqsn5IU

Djehuti

28th March 2009, 17:43

I know quite a few hardcore communists that listenes to, or at least dances to Britney Spears and Rhianna.

From my experience most communists listens to pop and hip-hop music, while drum and bass and dubstep mucic rock the dancefloors. But theres also many who prefers hardcore for example. It differs.

Matina

28th March 2009, 18:24

No you are, if you really think that make up and the way you dress make you pretty or ugly you have a nasty character. You should just were the clothes you like and that you are fine by yourself not what is the standard.

Ugly clothes and nice clothes are made by capitalist companies who employ workers. If you think you are revolutionary, just because you wear ugly clothes think again! Your clothes were made by workers. There's no such think as socialist clothes.
Same goes for my make-up, glasses, earrings etc and the commodities you purchase for the same amount of money. Everything around us is made by the capitalist system either you like it or not.

So you are not more revolutionary for spending your money on other stuff and I spend it for clothes, make-up and products like that.

Same goes for listening to the 'correct' bands. If thats the reason why you are listen to that crappy music than you're just a slave to the system

Same goes for music. Metal or whatever crap you listen to, is made by musicians who sell their music for money. Britney Spears is equally "capitalist music" with Slayer or whatever you listen to.

ZeroNowhere

28th March 2009, 18:29

Same goes for music. Metal or whatever crap you listen to, is made by musicians who sell their music for money. Britney Spears is equally "capitalist music" with Slayer or whatever you listen to.
Um, selling something for compensation is not exactly the essence of capitalism.

Matina

28th March 2009, 18:54

Um, selling something for compensation is not exactly the essence of capitalism.

Selling your ability to work (make music), to a company is the essence of capitalism.
The person was arguing that I wasn't revolutionary enough for listening to pop.
I was arguing against it using his paradigm.

ZeroNowhere

28th March 2009, 19:19

Selling your ability to work (make music), to a company is the essence of capitalism.
You can't sell something to companies, because they aren't people.

Matina

28th March 2009, 19:38

You can't sell something to companies, because they aren't people.

What are you talking about? A worker that works for a corporation doesn't sell his ability to work to that corporation?
If that was the case the marxist economic theory would be shattered:lol:.
Read Wage Labour and Capital please and then let's discuss economics.

Incendiarism

28th March 2009, 19:38

I absolutely loathe rihanna. I just don't see anything special about her, her music seems almost as if she's merely talking to a beat rather than you know, actually carrying a note. I think Beyonce is far superior - she's beautiful and has an excellent voice.

That said, I don't listen to contemporary pop music(Though I listen to a number of popular musicians and bands), but it's kind of hard to escape it when the radio blasts it at work and when having my mp3 player on is apparently banned.

Das war einmal

28th March 2009, 21:05

Ugly clothes and nice clothes are made by capitalist companies who employ workers. If you think you are revolutionary, just because you wear ugly clothes think again! Your clothes were made by workers. There's no such think as socialist clothes.
Same goes for my make-up, glasses, earrings etc and the commodities you purchase for the same amount of money. Everything around us is made by the capitalist system either you like it or not.

Pfah I am not talking about 'ugly' or 'nice' clothes. You said people who dont care what they wear are ugly. Well I dont look at what kind of brands I purchase just so I can be a part of a community who would swallow every authorian dictatorship as long as they can go on with partying. As long is it fits and sometimes if I like a certain metal band I wear their t-shirts because I used to like that.

Same goes for music. Metal or whatever crap you listen to, is made by musicians who sell their music for money. Britney Spears is equally "capitalist music" with Slayer or whatever you listen to.

Haha no thats not the same, Britney and all of your crappy artist dont even write their own music. Everything they do is fake and ment to sell as much copies as possible. There music is totally clear of any message which might inspire you or deliver criticism on capitalist society, even worse, they stimulate children to consume more.

Invincible Summer

28th March 2009, 21:52

Riahanna? Oh good lord...

The only "pop" I can stand is Nena, the Pipettes, and Abba.

Nena - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0nfkxGJqIY

The Pipettes - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VV6Knsx7GEA

Abba is self-explanatory.

The Killers are okay I guess... I only like Somebody Told Me and Mr Brightside

Pirate Utopian

28th March 2009, 22:57

ABBA is good in a funny ironic sorta way.

ZeroNowhere

29th March 2009, 15:51

What are you talking about? A worker that works for a corporation doesn't sell his ability to work to that corporation?
No, he sells it to a capitalist. So presumably there would have to be a capitalist involved. I certainly can't see any capitalists involved in most metal, certainly nothing more than petit-bourgeoisie.

Matina

29th March 2009, 18:01

Pfah I am not talking about 'ugly' or 'nice' clothes. You said people who dont care what they wear are ugly. Well I dont look at what kind of brands I purchase just so I can be a part of a community who would swallow every authorian dictatorship as long as they can go on with partying. As long is it fits and sometimes if I like a certain metal band I wear their t-shirts because I used to like that.

You know that most of the working class buys nice clothes and goes partying in the first world countries? My friend who has a job and her own house spends 20% of her money on clothes every month. She goes clubbing etc, but at the same time she's working class because she is a cashier in a supermarket. So by this you are talking shit about the a whole portion of working class kids, who "will accept every authoritarian dictatorship", because they are not going to metal concerts and they are not wearing just anything. I think your logic and understanding of dialectics, is very flawed. It seems like you have a static view of objective material conditions, no wonder you're a stalinist.

Haha no thats not the same, Britney and all of your crappy artist dont even write their own music. Everything they do is fake and ment to sell as much copies as possible. There music is totally clear of any message which might inspire you or deliver criticism on capitalist society, even worse, they stimulate children to consume more.

What's wrong with consuming more? Are you a primitivist? I wish I had enough money to buy a fucking boat. This anti-consumption attitude is so petit bourgeois. As marxists we always want better conditions for the working class. The more commodities that are available for a worker to purchase the better his standard of living.

Music is not only for inspiring people to make revolutions. Music is also for enjoyment , dancing etc. In general your attitude to consumption, music etc is very petit-bourgeois. I mean this lifestylist attitude about consumption and clothes, you don't need to constantly prove that you dislike capitalism through your clothes, attitude etc. You can do that in more meaningful ways.

Matina

29th March 2009, 18:08

No, he sells it to a capitalist. So presumably there would have to be a capitalist involved. I certainly can't see any capitalists involved in most metal, certainly nothing more than petit-bourgeoisie.

He can sell it to a capitalist or a group of capitalists (corporations).
Also the overwhelming majority of metal bands are signed to record companies, which are a group of capitalists.

Well if you cannot understand that you can sell your ability to work to a group of capitalists, instead of only one capitalist, then you have a vulgar understanding of marxist economics and it's not worth arguing with you and wasting my time. I would advise you to go read wage labour and capital and Das Kapital if you can handle it. Until then stop bugging me with your ignorance.

ZeroNowhere

29th March 2009, 20:00

He can sell it to a capitalist or a group of capitalists (corporations).
Also the overwhelming majority of metal bands are signed to record companies, which are a group of capitalists.
A 'corporation' is not defined as a 'group of capitalists'. Also, the number of capitalists is irrelevant here. And, again, record labels for more obscure music don't exactly breed anything more than petit-bourgeoisie. Some record labels would have big capitalists, but not many. For example, Black Sabbath's albums were put out on Warner Bros. Records, which would be a fine example of capitalism being progressive (and the reason why the Russian Revolution failed, or should I say, succeeded, was that heavy metal did not exist yet. Socialist Industrial Union power plus heavy metal equals communism). 'Ample Destruction' was put out on Azra, which would certainly not have been especially profitable an endeavor, especially at the time. But then again, independent labels can often not have idle owners, and certainly, a capitalist or group of capitalists (after all, a record label is not merely a group of capitalists, since it generally also has a role in production and distribution of albums). So, basically, record labels do not necessarily require idle owners, meaning that they can just as easily have petit-bourgeois, or, technically, not have capitalists at all. On the other hand, pop labels generally will not fit this.
Not that it matters, I would still listen to pop if it wasn't crap.

Well if you cannot understand that you can sell your ability to work to a group of capitalists, instead of only one capitalist, then you have a vulgar understanding of marxist economics and it's not worth arguing with you and wasting my time. I would advise you to go read wage labour and capital and Das Kapital if you can handle it. Until then stop bugging me with your ignorance.
Already done that, but if you say so.

Das war einmal

29th March 2009, 21:50

You know that most of the working class buys nice clothes and goes partying in the first world countries? My friend who has a job and her own house spends 20% of her money on clothes every month. She goes clubbing etc, but at the same time she's working class because she is a cashier in a supermarket. So by this you are talking shit about the a whole portion of working class kids, who "will accept every authoritarian dictatorship", because they are not going to metal concerts and they are not wearing just anything. I think your logic and understanding of dialectics, is very flawed. It seems like you have a static view of objective material conditions, no wonder you're a stalinist.

I'm no 'stalinist' next to the fact that this is a made up term I disagree with Stalin's authoritarian policy. But back to the point of the discussion. I don't really give a fuck about the brands somebody's wearing, sometimes people really dont have the money to buy fancy clothes. I never did anyway. So if you judge people on the way they dress thats really petit-bourgeois. Its something different if you are not brushing your teeth or combing your hair. But I wasn't talking about that.

Nothings wrong with going to a party now and then but these days young people really dont do much anything else. They don't give a fuck about the situation elsewhere. Thats what bothers me, cause they are pummeled into submission. And popartist are a part of this.

What's wrong with consuming more? Are you a primitivist? I wish I had enough money to buy a fucking boat. This anti-consumption attitude is so petit bourgeois. As marxists we always want better conditions for the working class. The more commodities that are available for a worker to purchase the better his standard of living.

Music is not only for inspiring people to make revolutions. Music is also for enjoyment , dancing etc. In general your attitude to consumption, music etc is very petit-bourgeois. I mean this lifestylist attitude about consumption and clothes, you don't need to constantly prove that you dislike capitalism through your clothes, attitude etc. You can do that in more meaningful ways.

I really hope I dont have to explain the crisis of overproduction? Its not consumption itself that I am having trouble with its the way its done. Now people often claim that 'communism doesn't work because people are selfish, they always want more' than I tell them why we need so much commercials if it was all in human nature. Now next to the fact that I find most pop music incredibly dull and irritating, I hate the way these popstars act. Its not just music, they praise the whole capitalist system. (Btw I hate popmusic long before I became political).

communard resolution

5th April 2009, 03:20

The pop vs. metal battle taking place here seems a bit pointless. They're just music styles. No music style is more intrinsically capitalist or anti-capitalist than any other music style, they just tend to appeal to different demographics.

Just because metal is very insular and somewhat disconnected from the rest of the music world (it's being kept that way to assure its 'rebellious' flavour) that doesn't mean it's not big business.

I'm pretty sure the overwhelming majority of pop and metal musicians have conservative, or at best liberal political attitudes - just like the majority of society in general.

Britney Spears is equally "capitalist music" with Slayer or whatever you listen to.

... and incidentally, both Britney and Slayer are right-wingers.

I like them both, although I prefer Slayer by far. Then again, I prefer Madonna to Metallica.

JohannGE

5th April 2009, 04:33

Without wishing to sound pretentious, doesn't "art" come into it.

The bounderies are blurred and there will always be much disagreement about what qualifies as art. But I think a distinction can be made between music that is at least partialy created with the concious intention to make something that can convey some genuine emotion or message and that which is made purely to entertain at a superficial level and make the maximum profit. I am not saying there is no place at all for pure pop music though.

It also seems that almost all "art" that has a lasting and wide acceptance be it music, painting, film etc tends to be leftist. There are very few examples of right wing art that stand the test of time or even have any apeal outside their reletively small target audience. Conversly, most universaly aclaimed all time greats of modern music tend to have a distinct leftist bias.

Can anyone think of anyone worthy of a place in the all time top 100 albums or artists that could be described as right wing? There surely must be one but I can't think of any.

LOLseph Stalin

5th April 2009, 04:44

I don't think ideology matters. I listen to a little bit of everything.

communard resolution

5th April 2009, 10:51

It also seems that almost all "art" that has a lasting and wide acceptance be it music, painting, film etc tends to be leftist.

Interesting thesis, but with regards to music I can't think of a whole lot of genuinely leftist acts that enjoy lasting and wide acceptance - unless you count 'liberal' or 'vaguely anti-authoritarian' as leftist (which I don't).

The Supremes enjoy "lasting and wide acceptance" now, but in their heyday they were seen as the epitome of superficial, manufactured, throwaway pop - mainly because their music appealed to teenage girls rather than adult males, who were the ones that decided what was real music and what wasn't.

Styles such as pop and disco have always enjoyed less critical acclaim than rock because they mainly appeal to young females (and gay men). In the 70s, bands such as Led Zeppelin even consciously avoided putting out 7'' singles as far as their record companies would let them because it was regarded as a 'female'/'teeny bopper' format and therefore not 'serious' enough. What I'm trying to say is that there are reasons why some genres are regarded as genuine/serious art and others aren't, and the notion of 'genuine art' may be reactionary in itself.

Can anyone think of anyone worthy of a place in the all time top 100 albums or artists that could be described as right wing? There surely must be one but I can't think of any.Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few right-leaning, acclaimed artists (Elvis, James Brown, David Bowie, Ian Curtis of Joy Division, Mark E. Smith of The Fall, Siouxie, Eric Clapton, Guns N' Roses, Metallica...), but I can't recall too many genuine leftists, at least not in the mainstream rock, pop, and metal world.

Even the Sex Pistols were libertarian at best. They even had an anti-abortion song.

I think most rock, pop, and metal unconsciously mirrors bourgeois (= capitalist, individualist) sentiments, ranging from liberal through conservative - and the same goes for a lot of punk, indie, and alternative.

JohannGE

5th April 2009, 12:56

Interesting thesis, but with regards to music I can't think of a whole lot of genuinely leftist acts that enjoy lasting and wide acceptance - unless you count 'liberal' or 'vaguely anti-authoritarian' as leftist (which I don't).

As often hapens I don't apear to have made myself clear. I was not reffering to people who would necissarily be considered leftist from the viewpoint of most peple on this forum. That viewpoint which sometimes seems to place the "centre" somwhere around the SWP. Perhaps I should have used the clumsy term "left of centre". Nor did I mean those who might have rightist tendancies in their private lives but meant those who express those viewpoints in their music.

The Supremes enjoy "lasting and wide acceptance" now, but in their heyday they were seen as the epitome of superficial, manufactured, throwaway pop.)

I think the very fact that black female artists and their record companies dared to challenge the white male dominance of the music industry, and the USA in general, in the 60's at all is very much an expresion of a left of centre stance. I would also cite Motown as one of the reasons for my comment that there is a place for "pure pop" in my earlier post.

Styles such as pop and disco have always enjoyed less critical acclaim than rock because they mainly appeal to young females
<cut>
and the notion of 'genuine art' may be reactionary in itself.

I would say that the another reason such styles recieve less lasting critical aclaim also relates to the fact that the considered concensus over the long term is that they are in general less deserving of it. I accept though that I am guilty of some personal bias there.

I agree with your comment that the concept of 'genuine art' may or can be reactionary but don't see that this should totaly debar the concept from our consideration.

Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few right-leaning, acclaimed artists (Elvis, James Brown, David Bowie, Ian Curtis of Joy Division, Mark E. Smith of The Fall, Siouxie, Eric Clapton, Guns N' Roses, Metallica...), but I can't recall too many genuine leftists, at least not in the mainstream rock, pop, and metal world.

Even the Sex Pistols were libertarian at best. They even had an anti-abortion song..

Again this would relate to the definition of where the centre is and where the left starts. Also again, while these people may have been known to hold right of centre views, the expression of those views was not generaly a fundamental part of their music.

I think most rock, pop, and metal unconsciously mirrors bourgeois (= capitalist, individualist) sentiments, ranging from liberal through conservative - and the same goes for a lot of punk, indie, and alternative.

I would not claim that most rock, pop, and metal artists conveyed revolutionary atitudes (though obviously many do) but that when any poitical stance at all is found in modern music, it is a predominantly a left of centre one.

While personal taste and perceptions of quality and nuance are always going to be difficult to compare, I still think the vast majority of all artistic output in all media that have a realistic long term claim of artistic quality, (whatever that is) are more left than right.

I wouldn't want to fall out with anyone over it though. :)

Bilan

5th April 2009, 16:09

Electro is be'ah.

JimmyJazz

5th April 2009, 16:42

Off the top of my head, I can think of quite a few right-leaning, acclaimed artists ... David Bowie

Really?? :(

Pirate Utopian

5th April 2009, 17:06

Yup. :(
http://news.q4music.com/2007/04/q_blog_foot_in_mouth_disease.html

communard resolution

5th April 2009, 19:53

Really?? :(

If you believe Bowie's public statements, definitely yes. Aside from the things that Pirate linked to (which he may have said for shock value or in cocaine induced psychosis), he once said more soberly "I could see myself being the President of the United states. I'm certainly right-wing enough."

communard resolution

5th April 2009, 20:25

As often hapens I don't apear to have made myself clear. I was not reffering to people who would necissarily be considered leftist from the viewpoint of most peple on this forum.

I assumed you were talking about genuinely socialist since you used the term 'leftist', which - unlike 'left-wing' - isn't commonly used for centre-left liberals.

Hm, I don't know whether I agree with your claim even in this case - it would require a statistic that I haven't got. Off the top of my head, I don't see a lot of overt politics in rock - aside maybe from some general notions of freedom, romantic love, or peace. I think aside from the hardest-core fascists, we all agree that war, hatred, and oppression are not very nice things.

Then there's plenty of narcissistic, individualistic messages in rock, which IMO is just bog-standard bourgeois ideology, liberal or not.

I think the very fact that black female artists and their record companies dared to challenge the white male dominance of the music industry, and the USA in general, in the 60's at all is very much an expresion of a left of centre stance. I would also cite Motown as one of the reasons for my comment that there is a place for "pure pop" in my earlier post.I can see what you're saying. But musically, I see a direct lineage from the hit factory that Motown was to today's Christina Aguilaras and Beyonces. I don't think there existed some 'Golden Age of Pop', and then it all went crap.

The black females vs. the white male pop establishment thing is definitely an interesting aspect, though. And then in the 80s, a lot of British pop allowed queer culture & issues to enter the mainstream and the public consciousness. There were even some Marxist mainstream pop bands (ABC, Heaven 17, The Communards, and I think Pet Shop Boys referred to Lenin here and there).

Meanwhile, rebellious & critically acclaimed rockers were singing songs such as this:

http://www.lyrics007.com/Guns%20N%27%20Roses%20Lyrics/One%20In%20A%20Million%20Lyrics.html

I would say that the another reason such styles recieve less lasting critical aclaim also relates to the fact that the considered concensus over the long term is that they are in general less deserving of it.But that brings us back to the question: who decides what is deserving of critical acclaim? The canon established by people such as the folks at Q magazine or NME is hardly culturally unbiased.

I agree with the other things you say - thanks for clearing it up.

Das war einmal

5th April 2009, 23:08

communard resolution

5th April 2009, 23:23

@Nero

What makes you think Metallica is on the right side, apart from the whole napster affair, I listen to Metallica for years now and I still have found no lyrics pointing at this. Most of their lyrics are against war. They have made no racist refferences or something.

I should have been more specific: James Hetfield, not Metallica. James Hetfield said some pretty moronic things about how he's proud that Metallica's music was used to torture terror suspects in Guantamo because this testifed to the power of their music and because it intimidated the terrorists with its message of "free speech". I remember now that when I saw the interview for the first time, I just thought he was extremely immature for his age. I also though he was living in a millionaire rock star bubble where other people's lives and feelings don't matter as long as Metallica are the world's number one heavy metal band. But I guess I subconsciously filed him under 'right-winger' - come to think of it, there's a strong chance it's true.

Lars Ulrich, on the other hand, made statements quite to the contrary: he said he felt saddened and shocked that their music had been used in that context because none of the terror suspects had ever done him any harm.

Watch the Some Kind Of Monster film again and you'll notice Ulrich is an 'instinctive left-winger' of sorts, always emphasising the importance of the group as a collective, while Hetfield's stance is "my way or the highway".

Pirate Utopian

5th April 2009, 23:48

Can anyone think of anyone worthy of a place in the all time top 100 albums or artists that could be described as right wing? There surely must be one but I can't think of any.
Frank Zappa.

Interesting thesis, but with regards to music I can't think of a whole lot of genuinely leftist acts that enjoy lasting and wide acceptance
Public Enemy, The Clash, Dead Kennedys.

Das war einmal

5th April 2009, 23:54

Metallica's video 'one' gave me interest in politics.

communard resolution

5th April 2009, 23:55

Frank Zappa.

Iggy Pop.

Public EnemyI thought they supported anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam, his Black Nationalist group?

Das war einmal

5th April 2009, 23:57

I should have been more specific: James Hetfield, not Metallica. James Hetfield said some pretty moronic things about how he's proud that Metallica's music was used to torture terror suspects in Guantamo because this testifed to the power of their music and because it intimidated the terrorists with its message of "free speech". I remember now that when I saw the interview for the first time, I just thought he was extremely immature for his age. I also though he was living in a millionaire rock star bubble where other people's lives and feelings don't matter as long as Metallica are the world's number one heavy metal band. But I guess I subconsciously filed him under 'right-winger' - come to think of it, there's a strong chance it's true.

Lars Ulrich, on the other hand, made statements quite to the contrary: he said he felt saddened and shocked that their music had been used in that context because none of the terror suspects had ever done him any harm.

Watch the Some Kind Of Monster film again and you'll notice Ulrich is an 'instinctive left-winger' of sorts, always emphasising the importance of the group as a collective, while Hetfield's stance is "my way or the highway".

Didnt see 'some kind of monster' I recon it must be a lot of *****ing. Metallica kind of lost it there. Anyway Hetfield is indeed a bit of a redneck. But in the end he did write some very progressive lyrics allong with Ulrich. I think you cant label someone at what he said one time.

Pirate Utopian

6th April 2009, 00:15

Iggy Pop.
Iggy's a bit of sellout, but genuinely right wing?

I thought they supported anti-semite Louis Farrakhan and Nation of Islam, his Black Nationalist group?
They were friends with a guy called Professor Griff who's group (the S1W's) had ties with the NOI but they distanced themselves from him later after he made anti-semetic statements.
PE did get alot of shit over Griff, wich they adressed on their album Fear Of A Black Planet.

JohannGE

6th April 2009, 01:05

Frank Zappa.

Interesting call but surely Zappa was an iconoclast.

Iggy Pop...all time top 100 albums or artists?

Any more?

Pirate Utopian

6th April 2009, 01:34

Iggy would definitly be in my top 100, fuck it my top 5!
Zappa defined himself as a conservative and praised capitalism.

Alice Cooper is also a conservative.

JohannGE

6th April 2009, 03:04

Iggy would definitly be in my top 100, fuck it my top 5!

There as NtE suggested is the problem...who decides?

As for Frank, I will accept him as the exception that "proves" my "rule" ;) although I don't realy think that even Frank Zappa could truly and accuratly define the enigma that was Frank Zappa.

Alice Cooper... Is a ficticious stage name taken from the name of the band, that would make him a ficticious conservative. ;) Furthermore if you want to make a career as a "shock rocker" I suspect that claiming to be a conservative is all part of the act and goes some way to illustrate the otherwise left leaning stance of rock. Is he in anyones top 100 anyway? A poor, if more successful imitation of Screaming Lord Sutch imo.

communard resolution

6th April 2009, 22:18

Iggy's a bit of sellout, but genuinely right wing?

Not in a 'rabid right winger who hates everything that walks' kind of way, but in a dollar-loving, 'let the best come out on top', Search And Destroy kind of way.

He praises Reagan in a TV interview that I've got somewhere on a bootleg DVD.

communard resolution

6th April 2009, 22:21

Alice Cooper... Is a ficticious stage name taken from the name of the band, that would make him a ficticious conservative. ;) Furthermore if you want to make a career as a "shock rocker" I suspect that claiming to be a conservative is all part of the act

This one cracked me up.

and goes some way to illustrate the otherwise left leaning stance of rock. Is he in anyones top 100 anyway? A poor, if more successful imitation of Screaming Lord Sutch imo.I like Alice Cooper, but I'm glad you pointed it out - I never thought of it that way.

JohannGE

6th April 2009, 23:09

This one cracked me up.

I like Alice Cooper, but I'm glad you pointed it out - I never thought of it that way.

Screaming Lord Sutch's band The Savages was one of the best live Rock and Roll bands I have ever seen, (and I have seen most of them) unfortunatly they were also one of the worst ever studio bands.

Armand Iskra

12th April 2009, 08:21

If someone dislikes the mainstream (capitalist) music they are more likely to be leftist. Conciousness yo.

Of course some pop is alright but most of it is not because its made for profit, rather than expression as music should be.

Listening to so called "Pop" music is good, but pop music seemed too much bourgeois although there are pop songs which are too realistic and nearly-"left" to be considered as "pop."

For me, I prefer listening to Punk, goth and metal, but as a left-I am more into folk. Since it is more proletarian than hearing "hoe" in your music.

LOLseph Stalin

12th April 2009, 08:27

I honestly don't see why people care so much about the politics in their music. Like hey, sure i'm left wing but it doesn't need to take over every aspect of my life. If I hear a song I like I listen to it whether it's "Capitalist" or not.

lurcherman

12th April 2009, 09:01

i like things like the cure,primal scream,the the,levellers,ect but screamadelica by primal scream for me was made a head of its time

RHIZOMES

12th April 2009, 12:18

Bad Grrrl Agro

13th April 2009, 13:53

I find that most leftists don't listen to "mainstream" pop music.
Some listen to punk rock, others to metal and others to classical music, rock etc. I rarely find anyone that listens to the music i listen to. Is it perhaps due to the ideology that they "discriminate" against mainstream pop?
I like Rihanna, Fergie, Madonna, Britney Spears etc. I really dislike metal, punk, oi! and that stuff. Is there anyone here who likes the same music I like?

I like that umbrella song. That's quite mainstream. Music doesn't always have to be about smashing the state.

I like quite a few songs that have the same music style as most pop music, but is a lot less mainstream. The best example is gay pop artists (like Jimmy Worm).

Bad Grrrl Agro

13th April 2009, 13:58

ChocolateToothpaste

20th April 2009, 04:41

I enjoy pop. I went through a phase of "God I'm so cool and counterculture that I can only listen to punk" but I decided I might as well just listen to what I like. I have nothing against people who only listen to punk, because I like punk music, too. I just prefer happy, poppy music because, radical leftist or not, I'm a generally happy person.

How can you not enjoy Mika?

Das war einmal

20th April 2009, 14:56

Lol how CAN you enjoy Mika, nevertheless, this thread has officially been ruined, for the fact as the TS made this for trolling purposes

brigadista

20th April 2009, 15:23

didnt punk die in 1978?

communard resolution

20th April 2009, 20:14

didnt punk die in 1978?

It died in 1977/78 as far as the original punks were concerned - that's why Rotten & Co. had moved on to other music styles by '78. It died in 1978/79 as far as the music industry and London fashionistas were concerned.

It then 'went underground', if you will, mutated into a variety of different subcultures (hardcore, oi, anarcho-punk, etc), and only then became a world-wide youth phenomenon.

Pirate Utopian

20th April 2009, 20:20

To be honest after the original wave of punk, punk isnt really that intresting anymore.

Unless ofcourse you think that post-punk is still a part of punk.

I like some of the early westcoast bands like Flipper, Big Black and Black Flag though.

communard resolution

20th April 2009, 20:43

To be honest after the original wave of punk, punk isnt really that intresting anymore.

I tend to utter similar sentiments that when I talk to "punk's not dead" fundamentalists. But when I hear someone say "punk died in 1978", I find myself going the opposite way because I think it's an over-simplification :lol:

The truth lies somewhere in the middle: even though the later waves of punk are much less interesting to me personally, one should acknowledge that they affected many more people on a worldwide scale than the flash-in-the-pan 1976/77 punk explosion.

In other words: just because the NME took less interest in punk after 1978 it doesn't mean it just died.

Pirate Utopian

20th April 2009, 20:47

I ment ofcourse to me personally.

But who am I to decide that punk is dead?, if some people say it's going strong let them fly the flag.

Jazzratt

20th April 2009, 21:59

I guess I like some pop music. I generally feel that, from a leftist perspective, it should be treated pretty much like fast food or any other large industry. Except of course quite a lot of pop music can have artistic merit (anyone who tells you otherwise is a pretentious wanker) whereas fast food tends not to have much nutritional merit. But yeah, listen to whatever the fuck you want. If someone tells you you're wrong to do so then just leave them to it, they're not worth the time.

Cooler Reds Will Prevail

25th April 2009, 23:51

I listen to some pop as a guilty pleasure... I have to admit I get a little amped whenever I hear "Just Dance" by Lady GaGa haha... That song is infectious as hell. But I listen to a lot more pop-like stuff in Spanish than I do in English... Most of it isn't so bubble-gum, except like RBD *pukes in mouth*. But for the most part I'm a hip hop head, I feel like I'm getting an aneurism when I have to listen to metal or punk, no matter how leftist it is.

Armand Iskra

27th April 2009, 14:08

real left music is more into the folkish kind although some are in the mainstream radio. However people who kept on listening songs carrying leftist traces are focused much on the melody over the message given.

For example, the Filipino the song Tatsulok. That song was made by a progressive band named Buklod. That band was famous for singing during protests like Joan Baez and others, however that song became famous again since Bamboo Manalac, a mainstream poprock singer sung it. Many people who heard it simply hear its melody, the voice being given by Bamboo, but as for its message? Perhaps a few understand it, especially those who are activists.

Perhaps, Pop music is good, but try to look for the message over listening much to its melody. Know its essence, since loss of essence negates the existence and vice versa.

MolotovCocktail988

23rd May 2009, 01:32

It doesn't matter. I listen to Metallica, Dead Kennedys etc.

rystrttn

26th May 2009, 01:30

Soundtrack of people's lives, if your poor and misrable like me, you become pretty non responsive to 'pop' music as their is no way to R E L A T E to over indulgent behaviour. period

gorillafuck

26th May 2009, 01:49

I don't like much pop but I like a little bit.

Leftists can be so irritating when it comes to music.

NoMore

30th May 2009, 13:04

I find that most leftists don't listen to "mainstream" pop music.
Some listen to punk rock, others to metal and others to classical music, rock etc. I rarely find anyone that listens to the music i listen to. Is it perhaps due to the ideology that they "discriminate" against mainstream pop?
I like Rihanna, Fergie, Madonna, Britney Spears etc. I really dislike metal, punk, oi! and that stuff. Is there anyone here who likes the same music I like?
ya i admit there are some mainstream bands that i like because they sound good but i still don't like the idea behind mainstream music. Mainstream music is about making money, and i really think it's quite fake in the fact that it's made so that people will like it so capitalist record companies can make money. Music like Punk, Oi, Hardcore ect. is made just because, and the bands could give a shit less whether people think about them or at least that's the way it used to be, because capitalist sort of took the piss out of punk also.