Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier music?

Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Or Billy Bragg’s Between the Wars, in my frank opinion a remarkably stupid lyric that manages to list nearly all of the worst left wing staple idiocies of the past century within a three minute song, made by someone you know is all too capable of believing in them. But it’s still a great song, so great that you still feel the pull of the ideas because of the pure conviction with which Bragg delivers them.

Oof. Tough words for a great song, Qvist. The song's words are sung by a "character", you know-- a sort of Everyman working class fellow. You might object to Bragg's imaginative characterization of this Everyman, but I don't think the song could be called "stupid". Also, I don't think wishing "sweet moderation" on England is all that shallow a left-wing sentiment, at least not in the stereotypical bomb-throwing anarchist, rock and roll rebel, dope-smoking dorm-room dweller, skin-deep punk sense of the term.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

They. I thought that was perfectly clear.

Sorry, no, it isn't clear at all. Who are "They"?
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Oof. Tough words for a great song, Qvist. The song's words are sung by a "character", you know-- a sort of Everyman working class fellow. You might object to Bragg's imaginative characterization of this Everyman, but I don't think the song could be called "stupid". Also, I don't think wishing "sweet moderation" on England is all that shallow a left-wing sentiment, at least not in the stereotypical bomb-throwing anarchist, rock and roll rebel, dope-smoking dorm-room dweller, skin-deep punk sense of the term.

Ah well, "Sweet moderation" is all very well, but I don't think that's actually a very good description of the attitude that Bragg is describing. The main point in this being that the British working man's inherent international class solidarity was usurped by war-mongering industrialists, bent on creating conflict and international division. One hopes this doesn't literally refer to the period "between the wars" (ie, the 20s and 30s), in which case it would represent a stunningly stubborn ideological view of historical realities. It is quite possible that it does, given that the values and attitudes the song depict were very widespread during that particular period (it was one of the key underlying reasons for the policy of appeasement). You'd think there'd be little grounds for nostalgia on this point though, given Hitler, Auschwitz and so forth. If it refers to the postwar period (which is also quite possible) it is, at best...let us say, something that works only and solely if you are prepared to subscribe to certain ideological precepts without worrying unduly about reality. From any reasonably objective vantage point, it's ideological schmaltz. Really, really silly. Or at least,that is my opinion.

You are quite right to problematise my over-quick attributionof the song's message to Bragg personally, but the main point is it doesn't really matter. Whether it is Bragg's direct opinion or not, the politics of the song staunchly oppose my enjoyment of it - but its qualities nevertheless prevail. I've got an all-time favorite 500 list on my ipod, and it's on it. :)
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

First, there is a majority of people who still feel the horror of Hitler's crimes. Second, "finding value" in Hitler's watercolors doesn't make one a Nazi, it just marks one as having the rare talent of seeing the twigs and missing the forest. If you were to bring up Hitler's watercolors at a party, I assure you the word which leaps into your listeners' minds first probably won't be "Nazi".

"I may not know much about what I like, but I know what's art" ? :)
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Ah well, "Sweet moderation" is all very well, but I don't think that's actually a very good description of the attitude that Bragg is describing. The main point in this being that the British working man's inherent international class solidarity was usurped by war-mongering industrialists, bent on creating conflict and international division.

Well, I see your point, but if he's talking "sweet moderation/heart of this nation" I think he's really referring to England there. Of course, Bragg has always sung about the international working man's solidarity with his exploited brothers around the globe, but mostly in other tunes. I've always heard "Between The Wars" as a distinctly English song, specifically with its reference to "hope and glory". Remember, international solidarity notwithstanding, Bragg knows that every communist revolution must by definition be unique-- "you can borrow ideas but you can't borrow our situation", as he puts it in "North Sea Bubble".

To your larger point, my understanding of World War II is that it came about largely because of the way the Great War ended. Some theorize that they are really two parts of the same conflict. If that's the case, then I think if you look at the origins of the First World War as being the origins (distantly) of the Second World War, then it's not such a stretch to say that the lives of average British citizens were usurped by war-mongering industrialists.

If the song reflected an attitude of appeasement, I'd agree completely. Better the skies go dark with bombers than let the fascists march across the globe. True. But for me the song's politics are not odious, as they are to you, because in the larger picture Bragg was completely right. Conflicts between elites over money and power were the primary factors behind both World Wars. The Nazis and their horrendous ideology were only possible in the first place because of an obliterated German economy caused by the failures of earlier German regimes and the crippling terms imposed by the Allies. "Between The Wars" is great because it asks us to revisit first principles. I don't think Bragg was saying he wanted England to remain neutral while Hitler romped across the planet. I think he was trying to provoke people into asking why wars are fought in the first place. Trust me, "arming for peace" has tremendous significance for me, as an American. Power wants war.

Also, I think Bragg would likely say that it could refer to any period. In the capitalist West, we are always between wars, always between upheavals, always between crises-- it's what we like to call "standard business practice". :)
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Knowing what we do about Morrisseys politics, which appears to be towards the nationalistic and with regards to animal rights, certainly quite militant, and being myself to the left, I would expect to find my enthuiasm for his music to wane. But this does not appear to have occured. I seem to have separated the man and his music.
But this is not always the case.
To take an obvious example, Wagner and Richard Strauss are still disliked by many due to their percieved or actual anti-semitism.
We are used to artists on the whole having liberal politics. Should we care? Would we still love Moz if he was an out and out nazi (as a previous thread has suggested)? For myself, I guess this would tip the balance. But how can a piece of information like that that stop you liking a piece of music?
And why stop at politics, surley personal morality is as important. Frank Sinatra was involved with gangsters (unlike Moz who only sings about them) but this doesn't effect his stature.
I'm not sure where this is going but hopefully you lot will contribute some pertinent thoughts.

I also wanted to mention (this was my initial reason for posting in this thread, actually) that it should not be taken as a given that Morrissey is "nationalistic". I would also go further and deny that he's militant about animal rights. His politics are complicated and as soon as you attempt to extract simple, concrete political views you've missed the point entirely. I don't care what issue or cause we're talking about. His feelings about meat are unequivocal, but the issues surrounding activism-- like blowing up animal-killing labs or chicken farms-- are another story. There's almost no position he takes which isn't contradicted elsewhere, either in his songs or in a print or TV interview. As a case in point, while one can easily bring up instances of nationalist rhetoric coming from his lips, there is another instance of Morrissey standing in adamant opposition to any form of violence, cruelty, and oppression-- that instance being the inconvenient testimony of his entire body of work and the obvious example of his own life.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

So because there is a minority of people today who "still feel the horror" of something that happened 70+ years ago, it means that no one is allowed to find any value in anything that Hitler did without being judged as a Nazi?
Hi Mcrickson, what I mean is that if we (society, majority or whatever) still feel revulsion then we will not be able to judge the art with out that knowledge getting in the way. It's not a case of being 'allowed' or otherwise. I mean look at punks, they obviously didn't feel the need to avoid nazi symbols but a lot of people do (I think I do). Look, just ask yourself, if someone set up an exhibition of Nazi art, what would be the general reaction? Would you go?
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Oof. Tough words for a great song, Qvist. The song's words are sung by a "character", you know-- a sort of Everyman working class fellow. You might object to Bragg's imaginative characterization of this Everyman, but I don't think the song could be called "stupid". Also, I don't think wishing "sweet moderation" on England is all that shallow a left-wing sentiment, at least not in the stereotypical bomb-throwing anarchist, rock and roll rebel, dope-smoking dorm-room dweller, skin-deep punk sense of the term.
Yeah! Worm is back. I wanted to post a defence of the song but you have done it better than I ever could.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Ah well, "Sweet moderation" is all very well, but I don't think that's actually a very good description of the attitude that Bragg is describing. The main point in this being that the British working man's inherent international class solidarity was usurped by war-mongering industrialists, bent on creating conflict and international division. One hopes this doesn't literally refer to the period "between the wars" (ie, the 20s and 30s), in which case it would represent a stunningly stubborn ideological view of historical realities. It is quite possible that it does, given that the values and attitudes the song depict were very widespread during that particular period (it was one of the key underlying reasons for the policy of appeasement). You'd think there'd be little grounds for nostalgia on this point though, given Hitler, Auschwitz and so forth. If it refers to the postwar period (which is also quite possible) it is, at best...let us say, something that works only and solely if you are prepared to subscribe to certain ideological precepts without worrying unduly about reality. From any reasonably objective vantage point, it's ideological schmaltz. Really, really silly. Or at least,that is my opinion.

You are quite right to problematise my over-quick attributionof the song's message to Bragg personally, but the main point is it doesn't really matter. Whether it is Bragg's direct opinion or not, the politics of the song staunchly oppose my enjoyment of it - but its qualities nevertheless prevail. I've got an all-time favorite 500 list on my ipod, and it's on it. :)
Hi Qvist, thank you for your continuing interest in this thread and your very interesting and well written posts.
Although I would guess we are from opposite political extremes and we will not come to an agreement (at least here) I would like to contradict a couple of things you said about the Bragg song. The left were not at the heart of appeasment, quite the opposite, whilst the Royal family and the Daily Mail were courting the nazi's, the left were volunteering to fight in Spain, they were fighting Moselys black shirts on the streets, the leftist activists and press were attacking Hilter long before the government saw them as a threat.
Take that Qvist!
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Hi Qvist, thank you for your continuing interest in this thread and your very interesting and well written posts.
Although I would guess we are from opposite political extremes and we will not come to an agreement (at least here) I would like to contradict a couple of things you said about the Bragg song. The left were not at the heart of appeasment, quite the opposite, whilst the Royal family and the Daily Mail were courting the nazi's, the left were volunteering to fight in Spain, they were fighting Moselys black shirts on the streets, the leftist activists and press were attacking Hilter long before the government saw them as a threat.
Take that Qvist!

Sorry, but you are wrong. On the issue of re-armament, the left was strongly opposed based on general anti-militarism and a strong pacifist sentiment - as was much of British public opinion in general, in no small measure due to the the still recent bloodbath in the trenches during the Great War. Calls for a firm line against Hitler tended to be seen as war-mongering. Again, not only on the left, but most certainly there. And the political impossibility of rallying British public opinion behind either re-armament or confrontation with Hitler was the basic factor that made a policy of appeasement the only viable option for any British government during the mid-thirties.

The British left, by the way, did not go to war in Spain. A few individual idealists did. I can't say I recall the Labour party arguing for British military intervention in Spain. Fighting Mosley's thugs in the streets were irrelevant to any major issue at hand, as well as the complete opposite of the right way to combat fascism, which tends to thrive in a climate where fisticuffs become a recognised mode of political struggle.

These were both extreme and unusual stances in the context even of committed British left wing politics during the 1930s.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Well, I see your point, but if he's talking "sweet moderation/heart of this nation" I think he's really referring to England there. Of course, Bragg has always sung about the international working man's solidarity with his exploited brothers around the globe, but mostly in other tunes. I've always heard "Between The Wars" as a distinctly English song, specifically with its reference to "hope and glory". Remember, international solidarity notwithstanding, Bragg knows that every communist revolution must by definition be unique-- "you can borrow ideas but you can't borrow our situation", as he puts it in "North Sea Bubble".

“For this is a land with a wall around it, and mine is a faith in my fellow man”? (Really Billy? A Wall? Around Britain?) “But they brought prosperity down at the armoury”? “Go tell the young men never to fight again”? I don’t see that it is possible to get away from seeing the song as essentially contrasting class solidarity – at home and abroad – with what the song portrays as a ruler-driven creation of conflict and aggression (walling in the country, bringing prosperity at the armoury rather than helping the working man and so forth). I’m sorry, but this to me is a silly ideological cliche. It’s not in essence much better if applied to recent history, its failure to cope with reality just becomes particularly glaring if applied to the interwar period.

If the song reflected an attitude of appeasement, I'd agree completely. Better the skies go dark with bombers than let the fascists march across the globe. True. But for me the song's politics are not odious, as they are to you, because in the larger picture Bragg was completely right. Conflicts between elites over money and power were the primary factors behind both World Wars. The Nazis and their horrendous ideology were only possible in the first place because of an obliterated German economy caused by the failures of earlier German regimes and the crippling terms imposed by the Allies. "Between The Wars" is great because it asks us to revisit first principles. I don't think Bragg was saying he wanted England to remain neutral while Hitler romped across the planet. I think he was trying to provoke people into asking why wars are fought in the first place. Trust me, "arming for peace" has tremendous significance for me, as an American. Power wants war.

That “conflicts between elites over power and money” were the primary factors behind both world wars is, to put it gently, rather inadequate. The first and second world wars are at opposite extremes when it comes to that sort of explanation. In my opinion, World War I is one of those elusive phenomena where it is really not possible to point convincingly to any single key causal factor. Bit like the fall of the Western Roman Empire, really. There was no important factor in it that had not been equally present for a long time, without resulting in war. Great power rivalry? Had been going on since the congress of Vienna, without leding to war. Colonial race? Was in fact largely over by the early 20th century, and in any case played no important role in the outbreak of war. “Conflicts between elites over power and money”? Come on, when and where hasn’t that been going on? And so on and so on. In summation – the outbreak of general war in Europe was due to a confluence of a large number of factors that turned out to produce that result as a result of the specific chain of events played out in august 1914. There is as far as I can see no very essential reason why it should have happened then that was not equally there 30 years earlier. Much like the Western empire, which as far as I can tell was simply subjected to a chain of events that they were unable to cope with in that particular constellation, despite there being no really new element present.

World War II on the other hand is singularly simple to explain: It was the inevitable result of Hitler Germany’s commitment to violent expansion. Without this, there would almost certainly not have been any second world war and given this, there is virtually no conceivable way it could possibly have been avoided. Of course, German defeat in World War I is part of the explanation for Hitler’s rise to power, but it would be a vast oversimplification to cast that firmly as a straightforward causal link. Hitler was much more than a response to that, and also that result could easily have produced a wide array of different outcomes. Not to mention that Hitler’s rise to power might not have led to a second world war had he been confronted earlier and more firmly.
And yeah, I can’t fault you for the “power wants war” thing as a post-Bush american, but nevertheless, it is rather a reach if elevated to a general principle.

To your larger point, my understanding of World War II is that it came about largely because of the way the Great War ended. Some theorize that they are really two parts of the same conflict. If that's the case, then I think if you look at the origins of the First World War as being the origins (distantly) of the Second World War, then it's not such a stretch to say that the lives of average British citizens were usurped by war-mongering industrialists.

That would be to extend a largely mythic, certainly politicised and clearly crude explanation for one historical phenomenon onto another phenomenon, by way of an extremely questionable causal link. :)

Also, I think Bragg would likely say that it could refer to any period. In the capitalist West, we are always between wars, always between upheavals, always between crises-- it's what we like to call "standard business practice". :)

So is everywhere else.

Oh well, we seem to have ended up a bit off-topic, as usual. :)
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Knowing what we do about Morrisseys politics, which appears to be towards the nationalistic...

I don’t find Morrissey to be at all nationalistic. Personally and politically, he occupies his own entirely unique space. The politics of Morrissey and the personality of Morrissey are one and the same, just as the art and the man are one and the same. He is neither left, nor right. He is Morrissey. He is apart. He is different. This is not to elevate him (he has many flaws, and I don’t consider myself an apologist), but any attempt at analysis invariably ends in a muddle. An overtly logical approach simply doesn’t work with Morrissey. Saying you can’t help feeling the Chinese are a subspecies is, quite possibly (as a statement), racist. Therefore Morrissey must be racist. Except, of course, we know he isn’t. So where does that leave us?

Morrissey approaches everything as an artist – this is why he can empathise with the frustration of the far right (National Front Disco) without accepting the politics (“racism is beyond common sense”) – and not just an artist, but a working-class artist. Morrissey is working class to the core. This ultimately places him in a political maelstrom where every political party lets you down and life is a constant process of erosion and coercion (you will become middle class, you will aspire, surely you can’t for one moment believe you are actually the finished article you grubby, inarticulate individual?). This is an existence which breeds compassion, community spirit and anger in equal measure. It’s a recipe for disaster... and great art.

As for what Morrissey would have to do/say in order for me to cease listening to his songs, I really don’t believe he would ever do or say anything that would have that effect. He hasn’t said or done anything in 50+ years which I recognise as the seed of some future debacle. Maybe I’m missing something. And there really is no point sinking to hypothetical melodrama like, What if he ate a baby seal live on national television whilst expressing more than a passing interest in the musical output of Phil Collins?

Thanks for the thread, by the way, Peter. It’s a lot more interesting than speculation about whether Morrissey would/should become an X-Factor judge.:)
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

“For this is a land with a wall around it, and mine is a faith in my fellow man”? (Really Billy? A Wall? Around Britain?)

I seem to recall something about a wall up yonder in the North... :)

The song touches on first principles. The song is effective precisely because they're so self-evident as to escape our attention. I humbly submit to you, Qvist, that your line of reasoning ("That's all very nice, Billy, but there's a little thing called reality you may want to watch out for...") is exactly what Bragg wants to start. It's the same line of reasoning Morrissey tries to initiate with ""Meat Is Murder". Both songs force you to rehearse the reasons for going to war, or for eating meat, thereby-- so the hope might be-- forcing a change in perspective. Evidently you've followed your own chain of reasoning and reached the same conclusions, which is fine. But (and this is my only point here) I don't think that makes "Between The Wars" silly or stupid.

That “conflicts between elites over power and money” were the primary factors behind both world wars is, to put it gently, rather inadequate.

I agree, but neither is your explanation. That's because we both know there's no point in rehashing, step by step, what caused the two World Wars. I will stand by the assertion that if you go back far enough in any conflict you are going to find elites squabbling over power and money. The origins of World War I are complex, it's true, but the war's byzantine complexity is a key to understanding why the war had so little to do with the common man, i.e. Mr. Bragg's mythologized factory worker. When you say this...

Come on, when and where hasn’t that been going on?

...I think you are agreeing with me. You're just implying that my position is naive and unrooted in reality. Which may in fact be true. :rolleyes: But, again, the important thing is to revisit the basic questions: why do we fight wars? Who leads the charge? Who does the dying? Who benefits? What are the conflicts really about? There is something naive about saying "Let's tear down the walls and live by faith in our fellow man", yes, but there's an equal amount of cynicism in saying "That's just the way it's always been". I appreciate songwriters like Bragg and Morrissey who nudge us to look at familiar subjects in a new way.

I happen to agree that the argument for appeasement was a bad one, and there's no doubt the fight against the Axis powers in World War II was fully justified. From your post above you have either read George Orwell's essays from the Thirties and early Forties or you are doing a fine job channeling him. Either way, I think there's room for a point of view which might lead us to look at the situation differently and explore the roots of the conflict. Sure, Hitler's rise to power was based on a confluence of factors, not any one reason, but unquestionably the depressed German economy played a major role, as did the disarray of the German left. The Nazis began as a small minority and rose to power exploiting the weakness of the state.

We're seeing this in the United States right now. Look at the recent fight over the debt ceiling, which very nearly caused a catastrophic default. There is a direct correlation between the bad economy and a minority of elected representatives who are dictating the governance of the entire nation. A minority pushed a majority to the brink. There are multiple reasons for why that happened, but ultimately it comes down to, yes, elites fighting elites for money and power.

Mythology, politicization, crudeness...let's not forget we are addressing these matters in the context of art. I don't expect Billy Bragg or Morrissey to give me an accurate, book-length dissertation on the causes of war. I expect their positions to be crude, even childlike. Those positions have immense value when we find ourselves too embedded in the dominant ideology of our time. There are always good reasons to go to war. There were good reasons to invade Iraq, good reasons to invade Afghanistan, good reasons to conduct drone strikes in Yemen, good reasons to open black sites around the globe, sound reasons to torture people, excellent reasons to kill U.S. citizens without a trial...

Not accusing you of herd-think, Qvist, just illustrating that a topic is sometimes best viewed in all its full complexity, and sometimes it helps to stand apart for a moment and re-evaluate its basic premises and assumptions.
 
Last edited:
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Sorry, but you are wrong. On the issue of re-armament, the left was strongly opposed based on general anti-militarism and a strong pacifist sentiment - as was much of British public opinion in general, in no small measure due to the the still recent bloodbath in the trenches during the Great War. Calls for a firm line against Hitler tended to be seen as war-mongering. Again, not only on the left, but most certainly there. And the political impossibility of rallying British public opinion behind either re-armament or confrontation with Hitler was the basic factor that made a policy of appeasement the only viable option for any British government during the mid-thirties.

The British left, by the way, did not go to war in Spain. A few individual idealists did. I can't say I recall the Labour party arguing for British military intervention in Spain. Fighting Mosley's thugs in the streets were irrelevant to any major issue at hand, as well as the complete opposite of the right way to combat fascism, which tends to thrive in a climate where fisticuffs become a recognised mode of political struggle.

These were both extreme and unusual stances in the context even of committed British left wing politics during the 1930s.

Qvist, I think you are taking a very broad term, 'the left' and applying a single observation. I admit I also used that term but then as now, I don't think that the Labour party was necessarily representative of the socialist position. Secondly, anti-militarism is not the same as appeasment. You forget that up to the late '30s the nazis were not a military threat.
I must argue with you about the stance on Spain and resistance against Mosely not being representative of where the left stood. These were enormous movements very much representative of socialists at the time. And this is what Bragg was singing about.
I'm not saying you are totally wrong. We are talking about the past here and it is all interpretation of recieved information which will be filtered through our own political
beliefs. I guess all we can do is bat to and fro our thoughts.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

I don’t find Morrissey to be at all nationalistic. Personally and politically, he occupies his own entirely unique space. The politics of Morrissey and the personality of Morrissey are one and the same, just as the art and the man are one and the same. He is neither left, nor right. He is Morrissey. He is apart. He is different. This is not to elevate him (he has many flaws, and I don’t consider myself an apologist), but any attempt at analysis invariably ends in a muddle. An overtly logical approach simply doesn’t work with Morrissey. Saying you can’t help feeling the Chinese are a subspecies is, quite possibly (as a statement), racist. Therefore Morrissey must be racist. Except, of course, we know he isn’t. So where does that leave us?

Morrissey approaches everything as an artist – this is why he can empathise with the frustration of the far right (National Front Disco) without accepting the politics (“racism is beyond common sense”) – and not just an artist, but a working-class artist. Morrissey is working class to the core. This ultimately places him in a political maelstrom where every political party lets you down and life is a constant process of erosion and coercion (you will become middle class, you will aspire, surely you can’t for one moment believe you are actually the finished article you grubby, inarticulate individual?). This is an existence which breeds compassion, community spirit and anger in equal measure. It’s a recipe for disaster... and great art.

As for what Morrissey would have to do/say in order for me to cease listening to his songs, I really don’t believe he would ever do or say anything that would have that effect. He hasn’t said or done anything in 50+ years which I recognise as the seed of some future debacle. Maybe I’m missing something. And there really is no point sinking to hypothetical melodrama like, What if he ate a baby seal live on national television whilst expressing more than a passing interest in the musical output of Phil Collins?

Thanks for the thread, by the way, Peter. It’s a lot more interesting than speculation about whether Morrissey would/should become an X-Factor judge.:)
Thank you CrookedLittleVien, I pretty much agree with everything you say about the Moz. This being a Morrissey site I thought I should cite him as an initial example as a gateway into the general discussion although I seem to have found myself discussing the socialist condition between the wars. Oh well, all grist to the mill.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

I seem to recall something about a wall up yonder in the North... :)

The song touches on first principles. The song is effective precisely because they're so self-evident as to normally escape our attention. I humbly submit to you, Qvist, that your line of reasoning ("That's all very nice, Billy, but there's a little thing called reality you may want to watch out for...") is exactly what Bragg wants to start. It's the same line of reasoning Morrissey tries to initiate with ""Meat Is Murder". Both songs force you to rehearse the reasons for going to war, or for eating meat, thereby-- so the hope might be-- forcing a change in perspective. Evidently you've followed your own chain of reasoning and reached the same conclusions, which is fine. But (and this is my only point here) I don't think that makes "Between The Wars" silly or stupid.



I agree, but neither is your explanation. That's because we both know there's no point in rehashing, step by step, what caused the two World Wars. I will stand by the assertion that if you go back far enough in any conflict you are going to find elites squabbling over power and money. The origins of World War I are complex, it's true, but the war's byzantine complexity is a key to understanding why the war had so little to do with the common man, i.e. Mr. Bragg's mythologized factory worker. When you say this...



...I think you are agreeing with me. You're just implying that my position is naive and unrooted in reality. Which may in fact be true. :rolleyes: But, again, the important thing is to revisit the basic questions: why do we fight wars? Who leads the charge? Who does the dying? Who benefits? What are the conflicts really about? There is something naive about saying "Let's tear down the walls and live by faith in our fellow man", yes, but there's an equal amount of cynicism in saying "That's just the way it's always been". I appreciate songwriters like Bragg and Morrissey who nudge us to look at familiar subjects in a new way.

I happen to agree that the argument for appeasement was a bad one, and there's no doubt the fight against the Axis powers in World War II was fully justified. From your post above you have either read George Orwell's essays from the Thirties and early Forties or you are doing a fine job channeling him. Either way, I think there's room for a point of view which might lead us to look at the situation differently and explore the roots of the conflict. Sure, Hitler's rise to power was based on a confluence of factors, not any one reason, but unquestionably the depressed German economy played a major role, as did the disarray of the German left. The Nazis began as a small minority and rose to power exploiting the weakness of the state.

We're seeing this in the United States right now. Look at the recent fight over the debt ceiling, which very nearly caused a catastrophic default. There is a direct correlation between the bad economy and a minority of elected representatives who are dictating the governance of the entire nation. A minority pushed a majority to the brink. There are multiple reasons for why that happened, but ultimately it comes down to, yes, elites fighting elites for money and power.

Mythology, politicization, crudeness...let's not forget we are addressing these matters in the context of art. I don't expect Billy Bragg or Morrissey to give me an accurate, book-length dissertation on the causes of war. I expect their positions to be crude, even childlike. Those positions have immense value when we find ourselves too embedded in the dominant ideology of our time. There are always good reasons to go to war. There were good reasons to invade Iraq, good reasons to invade Afghanistan, good reasons to conduct drone strikes in Yemen, good reasons to open black sites around the globe, sound reasons to torture people, excellent reasons to kill U.S. citizens without a trial...

Not accusing you of herd-think, Qvist, just illustrating that a topic is sometimes best viewed in all its full complexity, and sometimes it helps to stand apart for a moment and re-evaluate its basic premises and assumptions.
If I may add to your post, in 1939 war was innevitable and the choice of the working man was clear when it came to choosing to fight. But leading up to that point, the British establishment hob nobbed with the nazis. This was not the fault of British socialists who were mobilising against facism long before war broke out.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Nice thread.

Regarding artists in general (and music in particular): It seems that most of my favorite singers/musicians happen to be of a similar political bent: raving leftists all. :D I've often wondered if there isn't some sympathetic vibration going on - birds of a feather and all that. Honestly, I cannot think of a musician I love in the modern era who has turned out to be (what now passes in America for) conservative or reactionary. Historically there are some composers whose work moves me greatly who had some pretty shady sympathies, but that is too far removed from the present day to disturb me greatly.

I don't really dig too deeply into an artist's background/politics anyway, but should I discover that, say, Beth Gibbons supported fox hunting or opposed gay marriage it would make me question her judgement as a human being, but not her staggering talent. It would sadden and perplex me; I tend to believe that a certain amount of empathy, imagination and compassion is required to sing the way my favorite singers do: with heart dripping in hand.

It should be noted that there is often no correlation between political sympathies and musical attraction: Lady Gaga says all the right things, but her persona and her music leave me absolutely cold.

Regarding Morrissey: Worm and CrookedLittleVein summed it up nicely: the man is contradiction personified. His art often undermines his words, and vice-versa. He cannot be nailed down to any particular ideology, although he often says things that can be considered politically extreme. Neat trick.

If, however, somebody uses their art to push a political viewpoint that I don't agree with, then it would become far harder to separate the artist from his politics (as his politics become part of the art). So, until Morrissey starts writing white power anthems, I don't think I'll ever have to worry about that. That said, though, it would do nothing to change my opinion of his non-white power songs.

Pretty much. Proselytizing for an opposing viewpoint is a deal-breaker. Morrissey's exciting new single "Close the Floodgates" would never find its way onto my iPod, but all his other work would still mean the world to me.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Nice thread.

Regarding artists in general (and music in particular): It seems that most of my favorite singers/musicians happen to be of a similar political bent: raving leftists all. :D I've often wondered if there isn't some sympathetic vibration going on - birds of a feather and all that. Honestly, I cannot think of a musician I love in the modern era who has turned out to be (what now passes in America for) conservative or reactionary. Historically there are some composers whose work moves me greatly who had some pretty shady sympathies, but that is too far removed from the present day to disturb me greatly.

I don't really dig too deeply into an artist's background/politics anyway, but should I discover that, say, Beth Gibbons supported fox hunting or opposed gay marriage it would make me question her judgement as a human being, but not her staggering talent. It would sadden and perplex me; I tend to believe that a certain amount of empathy, imagination and compassion is required to sing the way my favorite singers do: with heart dripping in hand.

It should be noted that there is often no correlation between political sympathies and musical attraction: Lady Gaga says all the right things, but her persona and her music leave me absolutely cold.

Regarding Morrissey: Worm and CrookedLittleVein summed it up nicely: the man is contradiction personified. His art often undermines his words, and vice-versa. He cannot be nailed down to any particular ideology, although he often says things that can be considered politically extreme. Neat trick.



Pretty much. Proselytizing for an opposing viewpoint is a deal-breaker. Morrissey's exciting new single "Close the Floodgates" would never find its way onto my iPod, but all his other work would still mean the world to me.
Hey Anaesthesine! I'm so glad you posted. Along with Worm, one of the best posters on this thread.
I feel your first paragraph could of be written by myself (if I was'nt a semi literate imbecile). All very well put.
I also like what you imply about not digging into artists backgrounds. These days I think there is far too much of this. I'm not sure I want to know about my musical heroes, it's their music not their personalities I like. And anyway, any information we get is always via sound bites, second hand testimony. I would ask, how would you like to be judged on evidence like that. Unless we move in next door, we're never gonna really know these people.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

Looking over the lyrics to Bragg's tune again, I'm struck by the fact that the working man in the song seems to be singing about the time "between the wars" both after that time, and during that time. "The peace we knew between the wars" implies a time in the past, while "desert us not, we are between the wars" implies he's still in that time. The difference is probably explained very easily. Bragg was writing about the peace "between the wars" in the 20s and 30s, but also placing himself in a time of peace (early 1985) which he understood was merely a period of relative calm before the next inevitable war (and let's not forget the Falklands had occurred just a few years before he wrote the song). We are always either at war, or between the wars. Lasting peace is an impossibility, at least in the current economic/political system.

I don't think this changes the debate much, but I just wanted to point out that Bragg is definitely not singing about the 30s in England, or at least, if the song is meant to invoke that period, it is not solely about that time.
 
Re: Does your knowledge of an artists politics affect your appreciation of thier musi

I feel your first paragraph could of be written by myself (if I was'nt a semi literate imbecile). All very well put.
I also like what you imply about not digging into artists backgrounds. These days I think there is far too much of this. I'm not sure I want to know about my musical heroes, it's their music not their personalities I like. And anyway, any information we get is always via sound bites, second hand testimony. I would ask, how would you like to be judged on evidence like that. Unless we move in next door, we're never gonna really know these people.

There are artists who give us first-hand testimony, who can be judged by their words and actions. The interwebs allow us to reach a level of public hysteria, however, not seen before: snap judgements, unjustified inference and mob mentality abound. Celebrity is a deal with the devil: you get attention and (if you're lucky) a bit of cash, but the media gets to publicly vivisect you and create a sensational narrative. It's not at all pretty.

Most of us are constantly shifting anyway; the people we think we know best can often surprise us. Favorite artists even more so.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom