Music Banter - Why don't the current mainstream pop stars care about social issues?

Music Banter (https://www.musicbanter.com/)

- General Music (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/)

- - Why don't the current mainstream pop stars care about social issues? (https://www.musicbanter.com/general-music/81156-why-dont-current-mainstream-pop-stars-care-about-social-issues.html)

I hear ya, I didn't mean to misconstrue you guys, I just get that sense from a lot of people, but then maybe I'm just paranoid. I do agree that it isn't a full fledged movement in the same way, but I'd be shocked if we didn't see something similar if things keep going the way they are, which it seems like they kinda will.

BUUUT to not stay off track, how about Against me!? I mean they're punk but they kinda blew up, awhile back I'll admit, and they haven't been very prolific, but still.

While there's of course nothing wrong in discussing these sort of issues in pop music, if artistes had the guts/desire to do so, I would rather hear songs about how the Palestinians are getting treated, or how America is Israel's lapdog, maybe something about what Islamic State are doing in the Middle East, or the kidnapping of those girl by Boko Horam. Hell, something about the banking criss would be good. There's so much injustice in the world, and so much singers could write about if they tried or wanted to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dreadnaught (Post 1560344)

Just because pop stars in our current society aren't releasing "save the whales" type material certainly does not mean they aren't contributing major philanthropic gifts to social causes. In fact, I dare to say that many artists today are shelling out more. Information is extremely accessible. It's not the responsibility of artists to inform the public about social issues.

This is actually not true.

More artists in the 80s and 90's contributed to more charities.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Surell (Post 1560435)

The problem is Ferguson is not a single event. These kinds of issues don't gain this sort of traction by being singular. There were several other events like it before it happened and since, and as recent statistics have shown Ferguson is a town with a history of this sort of discrimination plaguing it. It seems like the greater Saint Louis area may share this problem, but really it extends beyond that. Anyway, the primary point is even if you disagree with people who point to the Brown case as a problem (which honestly I do), or you think being angry with it is dumb, the fact is people are angry, and they believe there is a problem, and so the debate ensues. If there wasn't outrage, it wouldn't be spoken about, and then maybe we could say there is no civil rights debate these days.

Since I'm here, I do want to rekindle an old flame and agree with Trollheart mainly because you guys know I'm a Neil Young dickrider, but also because just last calender year he released "Who's Gonna Stand Up?", a song about ecological abuse, and so that is current and by a mainstream artist. However, I understand I may be missing the nuance of "newly established artists who are mainstream", which I understand if that is the point.

Besides that, let's see... I wanna say Beyonce's "7/11" references Ferguson with those lines about doing things with her hands up, but I might be reaching. Also it may have come out before that.

EDIT: Frownland I just have to answer this directly, about black people committing crimes to get shot over. Yes, of course they are capable. However, it also seems like they're not just seen as capable but more likely by a police officer, and so that gun gets jumped (pun not intended but woefully acknowledged) far too frequently and oftentimes without good reason.

Excellent post :clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:
That childish Beyonce song does not reference anything political

Macklemore is a pretty big name. I guess you could say that many pop songs are inspirational and speak out for individuality, but don't specify a single people group.

edit: I suppose that could be considered a lazy way of them being "inclusive" to all social issues, as if they focus on some and not others, it can be used against them. The social climate has changed since the 60s and 70s when social turmoil fueled the music industry.

I have another question some of you guys responses made me think about.

Why do you think music labels and corporations do not want to promote social conscious music? Why do they not encourage artists or brands to make songs that reflect the times in their music?

Surely if these things were promoted on a major platform, I think the general public would not have a choice but be expose to these themes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560698)

It all comes down to advertising. Say an artist makes a somewhat controversial socially conscious song and it gets played on the radio. Now say that one of the big advertisers that pays for a bulk of the radio show disagrees with that song and doesn't want their advertisements juxtaposed to a song with that content. They usually either recommend the radio station not play the song on threat of pulling from their sponsorship. Major labels care about money, and if a song can't get radio play because it might be controversial with advertisers who might keep the song off of the radio, the label is going to push the artist to stay away from that type of content.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Frownland (Post 1560703)

But back in the 70s and 80's some of the biggest hits were political and social conscious songs.

"Say it loud I am black and proud"- James Brown

"You Havent Done Nothin" Stevie Wonder

"One Nation Under a Groove"- Parliament/Funkdelic

"Whats Going On" Marvin Gaye

Why can't they be big hits today?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560678)

This is actually not true.

More artists in the 80s and 90's contributed to more charities.

Can you back this up? Do you have proof?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Soulflower (Post 1560709)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chula Vista (Post 1560100)

In the 70s radio stations were individually owned and didn't have to answer to huge corporations.

Clear Channel (iHeart radio) was founded in 2008 and has revenues in the billions based on advertising dollars. They currently own over 850 of the major stations in the US and aren't going to tolerate anything that their advertisers might find "uncomfortable" - like a song about the Ferguson shooting.

Short memory SF?