Soulflower

I wonder will Music Banter shut down, Frownland AGREES WITH ME

Soulflower

This is very true.


The reason why I asked these questions because although they are not social activists the people who are affected by social issues (mostly) are the people that go to their concerts, buy their CD's, perfumes etc.

So while I think they are not obligated to care about the very people who made them who they are, I think that when their audiences is affected by something I think they should at least show they care about them. I dunno. I think they should in a way be held accountable especially if they claim to care about social issues.

Black Francis

I think musicians don't have to be role models if they don't want to..

There will always be artist that will be more socially conscient and will try to use their influence to do good but there are other artist who simply don't care about that kinda stuff and that's ok by me.

__________________
"Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A

Soulflower

Agree.


I just can't stand pop stars like Beyonce and Jay Z. Two of the fakest pop stars that ever existed who claim to care about social issues but really don't. I think stars like them should be held accountable for what they say and then bashed if they are proven to be fakes.

DwnWthVwls

I think you take what these people say too much at face value. It may be partially sincere but I'm jaded enough to also believe it's all part of their marketing.

Not everyone is gonna be Jean Grae:

__________________
I don't got a god complex, you got a simple god...

Soulflower

Trust and believe boo I dont take what they say as the gospel but it does make for interesting conversation because ALOT of people do.

Black Francis

I don't really follow the career of those 2 on stage much less off stage but if they donate money to charity or a cause or are spokespersons for one as much as i dislike them or think its just good pr work, ultimately fake or not they're helping the organization and though you and i don't see the difference the ppl who those organization help probably do.

__________________
"Hey Kids you got to meet the MIGHTY PIXIES!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JbRbCtIgW3A

Trollheart

Comments like "do you understand now?" can only be seen as a thinly veiled arrogance: it translates to "why don't you understand/are you thick?"

Also, you were NOT specific in your OP. You never said "artistes like Nicky Minaj, Taylor sSwift et al". Had you done so, then I wouldn't have had to clarify the point with you.

Anyhoo, if you're talking about artistes like the ones mentioned (and as I say, mainstream does not conform to what you want it to, it refers to any artiste working now and still popular) then it's obvious: issues in pop music don't sell, so the artistes would either be told or know not to be too "deep", as all they want to do is appeal to a younger generation who are more interested in "woo girl I wanna dance" etc than "isn't it terrible what's happening in Somalia" or whatever. It doesn't pay them to go into those issues, and anyway, they may not be interested in or even know of them. Also, they don't want to risk alienating any fans or more importantly sponsors by being too edgy or controversial, and they certainly don't want to damage their airplay chances. So they play safe. Simple as that.

If you want singers singing about issues, look outside the mainstream, but don't complain that the ones you listed don't do deep; it's just not something that's profitable to them, and for artistes like that, the bottom line is the dollar.

__________________
Trollheart: Signature-free since April 2018

Neapolitan

TH did nothing more that state artists that he considered mainstream. She did not specify it had to be only artist currently in the Top 40 or however people want to differentiate the difference between being popular and being mainstream. In the end it's a minibate over semantics, and shame on you Mr. Frownland for taking sides.

Now if someone mentions artists that is popular and mainstream and in the charts they are not good enough for SF. Maybe they not her kind of popular. But some of them do speak about issues.

Case in point - an artist that does care about an issue but SF has no respect for: Katy Perry. Katy did a collaboration with Brooke Axtell during the grammies. Brooke read a written-word piece about domestic abuse and Katy sang a song, By The Grace Of God, that appropriately followed (even thought it's not about domestic abuse.) Kudos to the executive producer of the Grammys, Ken Ehrlich for making it happen.

Brooke Axtell Joins Katy Perry's Grammys Performance To Stand Up Against Domestic Violence
Brooke Axtell Interview: Meet the Domestic Abuse Survivor Who Is Performing with Katy Perry at the Grammys

__________________

Zyrada

Isn't this moving the goal posts a bit? You said you wanted an example of a current mainstream musician making a stand on a social issue, but you never said anything about whether or not you personally had to find it effective or genuine.

As for the question of whether or not musicians should take advantage of their cultural position to promote a socio-political stance, I don't think they're obligated. Is it nice if they find a way to do so that doesn't involve awkwardly shoehorning a hamfisted aesop into a song? Sure, but at the end of the day, their job is to entertain.

As a side point, I'd argue that part of the problem with arguing over this topic is precisely what qualifies as "mainstream", "current", and "relevant". The idea of a "universal audience" is less applicable than it's ever been, so trying to find an artist that's "important enough" and has a high enough platform to truly make a difference is tricky at best. Trollheart bringing up figures like Springsteen and U2 really illustrates my point. I'll admit that they're mainstream, but they don't have any particular importance or relevance in my own musical sphere, and I'd say the same sentiment carries for a significant chunk of my generation.

__________________