Do you trust 'revolutionary' bands?

[communard resolution]

Well, do you? Or do you think that in most cases, the 'revolutionary' image is just an easy way to stand out from the pack and pander toward youthful rebellion?

According to the laws of capitalism, if you want to sell a product you need to convince the consumer that your product is different and better than others. Why not use simple, strong, easily recognisable imagery commonly associated with rebellion such as red stars or circled A's? "Look at us, we're not like Nickleback - we're revolutionaries. If you are too, buy our merchandise".

Apparently, The Clash didn't have a clue about politics until their manager Bernie Rhodes suggested they adapt a revolutionary socialist image - a recommendation they followed swiftly and based their entire career upon. It's hard to say whether Joe Strummer was genuine or not, but you know, given that he lied about his class background from day one...

Around 1979 there were two important revolutionary punk bands in the UK: Crass (anarchist) and the now forgotten Crisis (Trotskists). There's no question that Crass really walked their talk (without making any real impact on society more broadly, of course). Crisis were members of the SWP, participated in streetfights against the National Front, and so on. But someone who knew them fairly well said later that they were into revolutionary aesthetics rather than politics. In other words, they were in it for the pose. A few years later, the Crisis members formed a neo-nazi neofolk/darkwave band called Death In June.

Do you think this might be the case with a lot of bands? A band such as Manic Street Preachers gives music journalists a lot more to write about than a band that only sounds good and looks good. To adopt some revolutionary rhethoric is a safe way to make yourself seem like a band that matters. And even if you're musically mediocre, you've got a guaranteed instant leftist following. What if the Manics, RATM, International Noise Conspiracy, etc. are really only in it for your money?

Furthermore, does it matter? Do you find it important that the band mean what they say, or do you think the crucial factor is that they get the message across to the fans, whether they themselves are genuine or not?

What do you think of bands like e.g. this one who call themselves 'revolutionaries' (see "sounds like" section on profile and some lyrics) but aren't really clear what they mean by that?

http://www.myspace.com/heartsrevolution

Are they trust fund hipsters who use 'revolutionary' as an attention-grabbing buzzword because they couldn't come up with a more original concept? Or do you see any value in them?

Historically, anarchist bands have adhered to the DIY principle, keeping things underground, independent, and away from the mass media in fear their message might be distorted and dilluted for easy consumption. 'Red' bands, on the other hand, have always been looking to get signed with the biggest labels in order to expose as many people as possible to their views. There's upsides and downsides to both approaches. Which one do you think is the right one?

Sorry if that's a lot of points, but it would be cool if we could discuss at least some of them in this thread.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

Im not too bothred about there intension its the results that bother me. Look at the clash. Joe strummer may have not being therorticaly developed much as a marxist but he played an inmportent role in making sure the punk subculture was far left leaning rather then the alternatives.

[Pirate Utopian]

Who cares if their singed to majors or not?
RATM is crap, but so were most bands on Crass Records.

Music isnt gonna change the system, it's just entertainment, stop treating it like some propaganda tool.
If you feel like saying something about a political situation or venting a social/political frustration thats fine but at some point it just becomes a load of boring rethorical propaganda.

[communard resolution]

Who cares if their singed to majors or not?

Well, I don't - it's a personal choice. But given that most commie bands have been with majors while most anarchists were DIY, and given that there is an obvious pattern here, I was wondering which approach is more effective if you're out to influence society.


RATM is crap, but so were most bands on Crass Records.Agreed on both.


Music isnt gonna change the system, it's just entertainment, stop treating it like some propaganda tool.Music can be a propaganda tool. It influences people. Or why do you think are they using music in advertisements? Don't you think the fact that they do is based on some psychological research?

Why did communists, anarchists, fascists, monarchists, all have their very emotionally moving anthems? Just to entertain themselves?

[Pirate Utopian]

1. If your out to reach people, staying in underground isnt gonna help cause you'll only sing to the people who feel that way already anyway.

I define selling out as comprimising your ideals and personal musical intrests (as in what styles you wanna play) for profit.
If you sign to a major label without a shitty contract that will limit what you can or cant say you dont have to be worried to be the modern day's Ricky Nelson.

2. I'm not saying music doesnt influence people.
That said, I doubt very much that music will have decisive role during the revolution.
"Oh hey your fighting in the revolution too?"
- "Yeah man, because I love dead prez!"

Music has an impulsive reaction to it, people get excited but it's all temporary.
I didnt give a toss about the messages of political music untill I gave a toss about politics.
And I listened to loads of Public Enemy and reggae.

The reasons everyone had their anthems is because either A) it was just all for the propaganda or B) their were proud or festive over a revolution/won war/other kind of victory.
It fitted what a group of people wanted to hear.

[communard resolution]

Music has an impulsive reaction to it, people get excited but it's all temporary.Well, it lasts long enough to make people rush out and spend money on product. Of course it doesn't influence every single person, but if it had no effect at all, I doubt they would still use it so prominently some 50 years after the inception of television.


I didnt give a toss about the messages of political music untill I gave a toss about politics.Same here. Most music I listen to isn't explicitly political. Although everything is political to an extent, i.e. you can sing about sex in many different ways, or the way a band present themselves in terms of gender attributes sends out a certain message, and it does influence people.

I know this guy, for example, who was a typical homophobic macho cock-rock guy, but then the glam aspect of bands like Motley Crue led him to check out New York Dolls, from which he went back to Lou Reed and a lot of other music influenced by queer culture. In the long run, his homophobia was replaced by tolerance, even genuine interest in non-mainstream sexual cultures. I think this transformation could be called political - all achieved through the influence of music.

Like me, you don't seem to listen to many explicitly political bands - that makes two of us. But how many revlefters do? And how many of them took an interest in politics because the music inspired them?



The reasons everyone had their anthems is because either A) it was just all for the propaganda But this is exactly what I'm saying! I think your problem with Crass is not the fact that they produced propaganda, it's the fact that they usually did it very badly. No catchy melodies, no catchy rhythms, nothing musically interesting to grab your interest or stir your emotions... just some guy monotonously ranting atop a marching rhythm. Of course that gets boring soon, and then we tend to perceive it as preachy. But we do so because the music isn't effective enough, not because the words are political.

When I listen to a communist/anarchist anthem such as Warszawkianka/A Las Barricadas, on the other hand... I know this is not a very materialist approach at all, but I can't say I don't feel moved. And I can't say it doesn't reinforce my faith in something. It does influence me.

[Pirate Utopian]

I know this guy, for example, who was a typical homophobic macho cock-rock guy, but then the glam aspect of bands like Motley Crue led him to check out New York Dolls, from which he went back to Lou Reed and a lot of other music influenced by queer culture.
And he stopped listenin' to crap like Motley Crue to instead listen to the genius Lou Reed (even the extremely underrated Metal Machine Music), I hope. :)


In the long run, his homophobia was replaced by tolerance, even genuine interest in non-mainstream sexual cultures. I think this transformation could be called political - all achieved through the influence of music.
Yes, but that's just it.
The music was entertaining, he got it, he stopped caring about the sexuality of the people behind the music without the bands having to tell him how to live his live.


When I listen to a communist/anarchist anthem such as Warszawkianka/A Las Barricadas, on the other hand... I know this is not a very materialist approach at all, but I can't say I don't feel moved. And I can't say it doesn't reinforce my faith in something. It does influence me.
I dont have problems with political music, by all means, if something is on your mind say it.
My problem is with bands that do nothing but endless sloganeering and preaching.
"Hey there's a Marx-quote we didnt do a song about yet!, let's rock!"

Nobody's 100% political, so nobody's music should be a 100% political else it just gets alienating.
Yes, we get it, you want revolution... bla bla... how about fun, silly, Marc Bolan/Eddie Cochran-style lyrics for a change?

Even if it isnt a marching beat and a lengthy rant, 100% political bands are alienating.
"I feel hardly any connection to [insert 100% political band here] as people with everyday lives so why should connect to their politics?"
I feel closer to The Ramones than to any overt political band.
A little light-heartedness and humour does miracles.

[TheWaffleCzar]

The only political music I listen to is RATM. I guess I dabble in the Flobots but they aren't all that amazing.
I listen to a lot of indie things.
Beck, Menomena, Flaming Lips, LCD Soundsystem, etc.

[Fawkes]

1. If your out to reach people, staying in underground isnt gonna help cause you'll only sing to the people who feel that way already anyway.



Though I agree with the rest of your post, I don't agree with this. People don't really realize how broad various underground music scenes are, and they would be even more if those bands that were huge as far as underground bands go didn't sign to major labels.

[communard resolution]

And he stopped listenin' to crap like Motley Crue

Their first album Too Fast For Love of 1981 is good. It's the only 'glam metal' album where you can actually hear both metal and glam rock influences (well, let's say the 'low glam' bands such as Sweet and Slade), and the cheap production gives it an almost punkish edge.

I cannot sit through that Metal Machine Music album by Lou Reed, and I understand it was meant to be a joke?


Nobody's 100% political, so nobody's music should be a 100% political else it just gets alienating.Even though I can see what you're saying, I cannot agree with you 100%. I love Grazhdanskaya Oborona, a Russian 80s punk band, for instance. Most of their lyrics were political, but unlike Crass they actually put effort in the songwriting. Some of their music sounds rather abrasive, other songs are anthemic and very moving. They happened to be so political because thier lead singer was a very political person - and I don't mind that because I find him credible and convincing. Also, I don't think he was "preaching" - a lot of the time, he was asking questions (go to the "great lyrics" thread where I posted one of his lyrics and a youtube clip of the same song).

Another example: The Clash. Whether Strummer was genuine or not, I think their most political album 'Sandinista' was their best.

So I think there's a time and place for both - political and non-political music. But I do agree that political music has to be very well-written to be effective.


100% political bands are alienating.What about Dead Kennedys? Pretty much every song was political. At the same time the music was fantastic, and some of Biafra's lyrics were hiliarious.

[Invader Zim]

This strikes me as a bit of an out dated question, because the Clash actually answered it themselves in Death or Glory: -

"How death or glory becomes just another story
'N' every gimmick hungry yob digging gold from rock 'n' roll
Grabs the mike to tell us he'll die before he's sold
But i believe in this-and it's been tested by research
That he who fucks nun will later join the church"

I must confess I am rather cynical about the whole thing. But having said that, I do like INC, the Manics, etc, and think they have written some very poignant lyics. And no doubt they sympathise with what they say, but do they sympathise with it as much as when they were 20 years old, were completely broke and only playing tiny gigs? Doubtful.

[communard resolution]

This strikes me as a bit of an irrelevent question, because the Clash actually answered it themselves in Death or Glory: -


Yeah, but what question are you referring to Zim? There's a dozen of them in my OP.

The Clash song says that rebels don't stay rebels forever.

[communard resolution]

I must confess I am rather cynical about the whole thing. But having said that, I do like INC, the Manics, etc, and think they have written some very poignant lyics. And no doubt they sympathise with what they say, but do they sympathise with it as much as when they were 20 years old, were completely broke and only playing tiny gigs? Doubtful.True. I remember we had a bit of an argument in regards to the Manic Street Preachers in an earlier thread. I must admit that I was slagging them off so much for the sake of debate. In reality, I do find their music dull, but I think their lyrics are very good, and I like how they initially combined a glam image with a political stance. Like Crass, they're a band whose music I don't really like but whose concept I wholeheartedly respect.

[Pirate Utopian]

Though I agree with the rest of your post, I don't agree with this. People don't really realize how broad various underground music scenes are, and they would be even more if those bands that were huge as far as underground bands go didn't sign to major labels.
It's not the point, I know the underground scene is wide but if your out to reach a mass audience a major label is sadly the only way.
Ofcourse it would be better if most people took an intrest in underground music, but let's keep it real, they wont.

Who do more people know?, Miley Cyrus or Aus-Rotten?


Their first album Too Fast For Love of 1981 is good. It's the only 'glam metal' album where you can actually hear both metal and glam rock influences (well, let's say the 'low glam' bands such as Sweet and Slade), and the cheap production gives it an almost punkish edge.
Never heard it.
Their first song I heard was their godawful cover of Anarchy In The UK, they are kinda tainted to me ever since.


I cannot sit through that Metal Machine Music album by Lou Reed, and I understand it was meant to be a joke?
Hmm. I dont know, Lou Reed wasnt trying to make a profitable album for that label because all he wanted to was leave, so I think he saw this as an opportunity to experiment.
Listening to the whole thing is mindnumbing, but some sounds are great.


Even though I can see what you're saying, I cannot agree with you 100%.
My problem is with propaganda music not with political music.
Stuff that says "well this happend, because of that so join us in this" is the problem and it just sounds like people are being forced into the politics of the band.
But the band you mentioned seems like one that vents their political frustrations not a dull propaganda tool.


Another example: The Clash. Whether Strummer was genuine or not, I think their most political album 'Sandinista' was their best.
That's debatable. But even that album wasnt purely political.


What about Dead Kennedys? Pretty much every song was political. At the same time the music was fantastic, and some of Biafra's lyrics were hiliarious.
Too Drunk To Fuck. :tt2:

You didnt think that after a while they sounded kinda dire?
I think they released some great stuff and their music had a good sense of humour.

[communard resolution]

Listening to the whole thing is mindnumbing,

I imagine. I think Reed said that "whoever gets to side 4 in one go is dumber than me".


You didnt think that after a while they sounded kinda dire?

Not at all. I think their music was amazing from beginning to end. I like how their guitarist was really more of a surf/jazz guitarist... they were so different to all the run-of-the-mill hardcore bands. I even think some of the stuff Biafra later did with Lard, Mojo Nixon, and the Melvins was musically outstanding. And it was 99% political.

As for the Crue, you can pretty much forget everything they did after that first album. I don't know... if you have a low tolerance for cheese, you might even hate that first one. Myself, I don't mind cheesy as long as it's sufficiently entertaing. Give it a go, I'd say? If 70s Kiss makes you vomit, don't even go near it, though.

[Pirate Utopian]

I imagine. I think Reed said that "whoever gets to side 4 in one go is dumber than me".
Well I'm dumber than Lou Reed.
But I think the album is critised unfairly, it's always rockcritics who look at it but it's in no shape or form a rockalbum.
Lester Bangs, as usual, made a good review of it: http://www.rocknroll.net/loureed/articles/mmmbangs.html


Not at all. I think their music was amazing from beginning to end. I like how their guitarist was really more of a surf/jazz guitarist... they were so different to all the run-of-the-mill hardcore bands. I even think some of the stuff Biafra later did with Lard, Mojo Nixon, and the Melvins was musically outstanding. And it was 99% political.
This discussion has become a matter of taste now I guess.
Jello Biafra solo was refreshing after DK lost it's steam.


If 70s Kiss makes you vomit, don't even go near it, though.
I only like a few songs like Detroit Rock City or Rock N Roll All Nite.

[communard resolution]

Well I'm dumber than Lou Reed.
But I think the album is critised unfairly, it's always rockcritics who look at it but it's in no shape or form a rockalbum.

Well, maybe I should give it another shot then, but I have my doubts I'll hear more in it than I heard before. My fave Lou Reed solo album is Berlin.



This discussion has become a matter of taste now I guess.I suppose it has. :) Pity, I was hoping we would get more out of this thread.


I only like a few songs like Detroit Rock City or Rock N Roll All Nite. Yeah, get a Greatest Hits of the 70s comp by them, and you're sorted out.

[Pirate Utopian]

Well, maybe I should give it another shot then, but I have my doubts I'll hear more in it than I heard before.
The album basically is just guitarfeedback without the other guitarsound that comes along with it.
It sounds quite brutal to a beginner to noise, but it's pretty light.

Knurl on the other hand, is shit no matter how hard you are:
8aRWgWZ4MQs


My fave Lou Reed solo album is Berlin.
I really like Street Hassle.
Also if not talkin' solo, Velvet Underground And Nico is my favorite album that I've heard so far (and it's been alot).

[communard resolution]

Knurl on the other hand, is shit no matter how hard you are:Now that's a bizarre, um, band. And I thought I had heard it all... another day, another discovery.


Also if not talkin' solo, Velvet Underground And Nico is my favorite album that I've heard so far It's definitely somewhere in my Top 5. Do you like Nico's solo records?

[Pirate Utopian]

I only heard Chelsea Girl and Marble Index.
I loved Chelsea Girl, I expected more from Marble Index but it was pretty good.

[Vendetta]

I don't know what we shouldn't 'trust' about these bands, it's not like they're leading the revolution...they're making music.

[communard resolution]

I don't know what we shouldn't 'trust' about these bands, it's not like they're leading the revolution...they're making music.

So you reckon whether it's Christina Aguilera or Crass, it's the same thing?

[Vendetta]

No, some bands may be true to their ideals and whatnot, but what I was saying was, it doesn't matter, it's just music.

[INDK]

Music isnt gonna change the system, it's just entertainment, stop treating it like some propaganda tool.

Any form of media can and will influence the thought, style, actions, whatever of the people that listen to it. Music is composed totally by the artist, and then is made public. Of course ideas are going to be injected into the music, Music is for most musical artists expressing themselves. So ideas can be easily expressed and very efficiently spread through music -- I mean, who just doesn't listen to music?

I mean, I'm a leftist because of punk rock. Go figure.


No, some bands may be true to their ideals and whatnot, but what I was saying was, it doesn't matter, it's just music.

I don't understand how it makes sense to some people that music doesn't or can't influence someone's thoughts.

[Vendetta]

Agreed, some people may be influenced by the messages put in their songs by leftist bands, but the title makes it seem as if the bands were singlehandedly leading a revolution...

[INDK]

All components of the press and media are definitely crucial to agitating any form of political progression, so no, not singlehandedly leading a revolution, but is certainly a very important tool of the people who are (i. e, workers).

[Pirate Utopian]

It can, but making musical propaganda is just dull and bland.
Most purely political bands dont wanna express anything, they just want to force their politics on people by telling them what to do.

Political music is one thing, musical propaganda another thing and it just isnt damn fun to listen to the latter.
Angelic Upstarts are way more fun than Crass.

[INDK]

It can, but making musical propaganda is just dull and bland.
Most purely political bands dont wanna express anything, they just want to force their politics on people by telling them what to do.

Maybe you think it's dull and bland, and don't get anything out it, but you're not the entire population and the entire population that listens to that music may not share that view, thus the ideas expressed can still sway a large number of people. Just because it's dull and bland and doesn't influence your thought, it could profoundly influence others.

[Pirate Utopian]

How many radical bands are well known among the mainstream audience that started in the last 10 years?
Do you really think people will listen to shitty song just because it is political?

"Hmm... this song isnt catchy, renewing or anything... but wait it has politics?!, OMFG! I think I'll be a revolutionary now!"

Music is music before any other shit.

[INDK]

I'm talking purely about the quality of the music. You think it's shit, someone else might not.

[Ligeia]

First of all, if music really is a tool....the music needs to be listenable for most people before anything.
If you want to use culture as a tool,you must look at present mass trends...otherwise you can put as much politics in cultural arts as you want....not enough will listen if it isn't appealing.
Even then...I always got the impression that not many people are keen to analyse lyrics or anything as long as they aren't interested in music generally.
So ..... I also agree, music is music(like "I like it,I'll listen to it again" not" I like that song,I think I'll invest time to understand its meaning") in the first place.
For music-interested people it may be much more.

[communard resolution]

Very insighful reply, thanks Ligeia. I agree that all these questions may matter only to people who are genuinely interested in music rather than the masses. My problem (or blessing) is that music is my favourite thing in life, so maybe I tend to take it too seriously at times?

I don't really mind if the lyrics are political or not, but I think there's a place for such bands too. On the other hand, I like a good lyric, and unlike many people I think that the lyrics are part of the music rather than a separate entity. So for instance, I could never enjoy listening to a fascist band like Skrewdriver "cos the music's alright, innit", even though I know people who can. To me, the lyrics are part of the package and I cannot just blank on them. In Skrewdriver's case, the message is so abhorrent it completely disables me from judging whatever musical merit they may or may not have.

[Ligeia]

I don't really mind if the lyrics are political or not, but I think there's a place for such bands too. On the other hand, I like a good lyric, and unlike many people I think that the lyrics are part of the music rather than a separate entity.

Same here,too.:)
There's good music without any lyrics at all but when it comes to lyrics....
sometimes lyrics even dominate instrumentation, sometimes the other way round.
When the lyrics are worth analysing, then Im keen to that as much as I can.

Nevertheless, I wanted to point out,that ..today there ain't that much bands (or artists)widely recognized,political and people even listen to their lyrics or are simply (and honestly) interested in their issues.
Frankly,Im not sure if I could name any.
On the other hand,I won't deny that there maybe some wonderful lyricists (even political) which even can affect people to think,to read, to act...etc.
but that's a tiny minority....that's how it seem to me but I can't say it for certain.