"Shut Up and Sing!": A Political and Social Connection

It is the year 1789 in France, and the French Revolution has just exploded on to the scene.  The United States has just recently gained its independence from Great Britain, and the people of France now seek a similar sense of freedom from their dismal existences under the oppressive governmental system.  Social and political unrest has been at the forefront of everyone’s minds, combined with a vigorous force to correct the tyrannical rule of the absolute monarchy.  If a person is caught speaking pejoratively about the government or its decisions, they are immediately punished by guillotine.  Now, fast forward to a place not too far from France, more than 200 years later.  In a small venue in London, England in March of 2003, the Dixie Chicks put on a performance, while across the pond the United States was gearing up for a war with Iraq.  Head singer of the band, Natalie Maines, made a comment in which she stated that she was “ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas” to express her views on the impending war.  Promptly thereafter, Maines was socially guillotined for employing her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.  Dixie Chicks music was not played on the radio, protests were held outside of their concerts and the President even spoke out in regards to the comment. While the United States of America prides itself on the accessibility of freedom of speech, the consequences of using that freedom can be extremely precarious, despite teachings of tolerance of others’ opinions.  Through the example of the aftermath of the Dixie Chicks’ controversy and other ways the music industry responds to political issues, it cannot be denied that music serves as an intrinsic part to social composition and also functions as an art form to communicate positions on social and political issues.

            As a person thrust into the spotlight, Natalie Maines endured immense repercussions for her statement.  As discussed in the documentary “Shut Up and Sing!”, once word spread of Maines’ statement, backlash occurred almost instantaneously.  Protests were held where people ceremoniously threw away their Dixie Chicks’ CDs, erroneous signs were created and warned that, “support for the Dixie Chicks is support for communism”, and angry callers urged radio stations to ban their music from being played.  Their album that peaked at number one on the Billboard charts plummeted, and their concerts were only sold out because people could not get their money back for the tickets.  The country music industry that had once vehemently backed the band completely changed its position, exemplified by the fact that the three women were not invited to the Country Music Awards.  The reaction by the general public exposes an interesting aspect to society and the way it functions.  Many dissenters maintain that the music industry simply operates as a form of entertainment.  They suggest that people do not listen to music for political reasons, or even based on morals and values.  However, the example of the Dixie Chicks fiasco directly contradicts such an argument.  The notion that country music enthusiasts are overwhelmingly conservative has been ingrained in American society for years.  Because of its inherently “patriotic” lyricism and themes, country music has been adopted as the traditional sound of America.  Thus, when a member of a band that is casually regarded as “America’s sweethearts” spoke out against the actions of the President, she was immediately maligned.  Country music listeners pigeon holed the Dixie Chicks into a group consisting of country musicians that overwhelmingly sing about conservative ideals.  The Dixie Chicks were supposed to align with those views, and when they spoke out against them, their public image was shattered. 

Now, imagine a hypothetical situation.  It is the year 2003 and Democrat Barack Obama is the president.  Jay-Z, Beyonce, or another prominent African American artist is singing at a small venue, not in the United States.  President Obama has recently called for an attack on Iraq, sparking a war.  Jay-Z, Beyonce, or whoever it may be does not agree with the President’s decision and announces so at the performance.  The performer states that he or she is, “ashamed the President of the United States is African American”.  Would not the same reaction occur?  The hip hop/rap scene is mostly comprised of African American listeners, and if one of their staple artists spoke out against an African American President, would it be wrong to assume he or she would receive the same backlash that Natalie Maines did?  No, because an issue such as this defies political party identification.  It is a concern with freedom of speech and how significantly famous musicians’ opinions can impact their core audience.

The fact of the matter is that a country experiences hypersensitivity when entrenched in a period of war.  The explosive reaction to Natalie Maines’ comment perfectly exemplifies such a notion, as does the aftermath of the attacks on September 11, 2001.  As examined in the article “Pop Goes to War, 2001-2004: U.S. Popular Music After 9/11”, many songs were deemed “inappropriate” to play on the radio in the days following the attacks on the World Trade Center.  Clear Channel, “the largest radio chain in the United States”, monopolized essentially all of the radio industry, buying up over 1,200 radio stations across the country.  Due to this, many small, independent stations that were bought out were forced to follow the rules of the corporation. Clear Channel provided a “suggested” list of music that should not be played, as a sign of sensitivity towards those affected by the attacks.  With meetings between government officials and the big leagues of the music industry taking place, their was a tacit agreement that the entertainment industry would “advocate America’s message”.   Nevertheless, some may contend that despite meetings between the government and the music industry, music does not weigh heavily on society’s political views.  However, the basic fact that those government officials met with representatives of the music industry verifies that the political world is well aware of the impact the music industry has on popular culture and the perception of social issues.  People respond to lyrics and create indexical relationships from said lyrics to their personal circumstances.  A political message in lyrical form is no different than that of a presidential candidate speaking from a podium; however, the medium through which that position is relayed and subsequently absorbed is what differentiates the two.

Additionally, the importance that general society places upon the music industry, and entertainment industry as a whole, cannot be denied.  Personally, I have been guilty of hearing favorite singers or athletes express political views that are oppositional of mine, and I have been turned off upon hearing such statements.  I still listen to their music and support their teams, but there was a short period of time in which I wondered if I truly wanted to be a fan of a person I did not share the same beliefs as.  This stirs a deeper question than just whether someone still wants to be a fan of a celebrity they disagree with- why do we care so much about an abstract person’s beliefs in the first place?  Obviously a singer’s music and an athlete’s performance are not the only things we, as outsiders, feel strongly about.  Thus, if we so prevalently examine the political views of a famous person, is that famous person, in turn, responsible for how he or she exercises his freedom of speech?  These people in the public eye have been given a platform to express their views, and when common people use their freedom of speech by choosing to not buy the product of a famous person, does the famous person have the right to be angry and call it unjust?  It is a complex situation no doubt, with no simple or quick answer.  One thing can be concluded, however-music and the general entertainment industry elicit deep emotional responses and affect society’s political, religious, and cultural beliefs more so than may be immediately noticed.

To conclude, society is immensely shaped by the music industry and people look to music for the expression of their personal principles and stances on different issues.  Furthermore, although the Constitution of the United States posits that American citizens have the right to the freedom of speech, that freedom comes with qualifications in today’s society.  As George W. Bush theorized to reporter Tom Brokaw, “Freedom is a two way street”.  Sure, anyone can say whatever he or she pleases, but he or she must understand that with any action, repercussions exist.  Natalie Maines discovered just that with the dissent thrown her way after she made a comment against the President, as have other celebrities that have articulated their views to an audience that generally disagrees with them.  Even looking back at historical events such as the French Revolution, it is scarily easy to draw comparisons to today’s society.  In 2012, a person may not literally have his or her head decapitated due to an outright statement dissimilar to that of the government, but the public’s boycott of said person’s product or social image is the equivalent to literally being guillotined.  Political correctness becomes a great factor in how a person handles his or her public statements, which is a shame in a country that sings its praises as, “the land of the free”.