Oh, there were more protests over shootings? The only other one that I know about is Eric Garner.

I am not talking about protests specifically but events that evolve around racism and police brutality against minorities.

Not to belittle police brutality, but it is kind of a drop in the bucket compared to segregation imo. Also, are black people incapable of comitting crimes that a police officer would shoot them for?

Context.

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 a good point. Back in the late 60s early 70s the artists felt like their audiences weren't getting all of the truth from the very limited media which compelled them to speak out through their music.

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.

Who says there's no debate? I said that I wouldn't consider it a movement, not detracting from the events in any way.

I just feel like the implication is that people discussing the events and gaining a new consciousness of certain ideas like police brutality and institutional discrimination (even though these things are of course not new) isn't in any way significant.

Not what I meant in the slightest. I think that the significance of the event will highly fade in comparison to the civil rights movement, but in the meantime it is definitely significant, just not what I would call a movement.

Not what I was implying at all.

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.

This is actually not true.


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

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.

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.

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?

Can you back this up? Do you have proof?

Short memory SF?

Why even bother asking :laughing:

I made that statement because nonprofits are much more present in today's society, and there is a major push for the wealthy and those in the limelight to participate in giving back. just because they aren't making songs about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

That question was directed toward Frownland. I wanted to hear his take on the question.

What Chula said, the mainstream music industry is far more monopolized than ever before. There's also the fact that a lot of people turn to pop to listen to something fun and don't want to be weighed down by heavy issues. I believe that someone else mentioned it here, but I think that the democratization of information through the Internet also plays heavily into the change that we see in the mainstream. Back in the days of yore, the population that knew of the music world outside of what the radio played was an incredibly miniscule part of the population so there was more of a burden on the artists to bring this stuff to the public's attention if the media wasn't going to do it. Now niche markets are becoming the norm in music, and major labels have their system down pat. There's not too much overlap in the audience that wants to hear about social issues and the audience that wants to hear pop, especially when social issues are all the rage on social media.

There are other sources for the public to inform itself on these issues, which is why a socially conscious song is no longer seen as powerful because often times these issues are already well in the public eye.

Can you back up your opinion with any proof?


I can list all the charities MJ, U2, Madonna, Whitney etc support and contribute to compared to the popacts out now. It will take me a little while but I can do it.


Would you be able to provide receipts for your claims?

I think music is still a powerful tool that can expose people to these issues because it reaches more people.

How do you know the masses don't want to hear this type of music?

They are only listening to what is being force fed to them.

^Because they're looking for something fun and upbeat when they turn on the radio and social issues tend to be downers. You don't think that the music industry has done any research to come to this conclusion? With it being so massive I'd say that they have loads of evidence to support their actions from a profit-based perspective. Music can be a powerful tool, but so can social media. I think you're completely ignoring the fact that there are other facets for social issues to become known outside of music. I would say that social media is even more effective than popular music in this sense, because there are a lot of self-righteous *******s like myself who avoid the radio and participate in social media so it has a wider reach. That's not to mention that while people do take the words of their idols seriously, they also give a lot of heed to what their friends, family, and acquaintances say through social media.

LOL, so you don't know what you're talking about when you just straight up refute someone? Classy.

Here's a short list of charitable popular artists: Taylor Swift, Rihanna, Jack White, Kanye West, Moby, Jack Johnson, Foster the People, Lady Gaga, and Justin Bieber. Need I list more?

Frown lol what did you mean by your statement about refuting I am lost.

My argument was that artists of the past contributed MORE than the artists out now. That list really does now show proof of that.

lol

I asked you could you provide receipts for your claims but you never responded

SF, you made the initial statement. How about you back it up with some numbers? Otherwise you are nothing but hot air and hyperbole.

I never refuted that there were not other areas besides music that could reach people. I just argued that music is still a powerful tool that can also be used to reach and influence people. It makes no sense that everything that has went on the last couple of years in this country with police brutality, racism, and gun violence that these issues can not be discussed in music as well.

I don't think the corporations are producing music that they know people like. I think it has an agenda.

Soulflower, the burden of proof is on you to back up your statement saying that modern artists don't contribute as much as other artists did. You can't just go "nope, not true because I don't like that idea" when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about with these regards to modern pop stars and charities. If you did, backing your claims would be no problem. Wanna give it a go?

No ****. My point was that those other mediums are becoming the norm whereas the glory days that you yearn for had a norm of social issues being relegated to the music world.

That agenda is money. Money made from people who listen to the music that the corporations make. Music that they like from those corporations. BTW, you got a tin foil hat I can borrow?

Err that has always been the case since the 60's. Nothing has changed.

Bey told me it did.

Why cant it be that the pop star is just a tepid shallow individual? Why does it have to be a music machine conspiracy. Personally there isnt a pop star living or dead that I'd sit down and have a politically, or socially ethical charged conversation with. They don't live in the world I live in.Money,glitz and glam change everything. Also,what on earth do I possibly want to hear their opinion for? Its not rooted in anything that remotely parallels my exsperience as a person.Music is to a degree soley entertainment, Im not saying it can't changes lives etc,but if I wanted a politcal debate or the 411 I'd turn on the news or an election.

Honestly I really don't give a ****.

Snob^.

:'(

Jen, The issues you are addressing, are issues that are not disccused in, oh I dunno mainstream hip hop or rap.They kinda talk about perpetuating the problem,gloifying it or romaticinsing so that every higschooler from here to the hinterlands thinks that robbery,pimpin,and murder are good things. The problem is social activisim isnt entertainment. And if you ask these ppl what their job is they will more then likely say,"Im an entertainer" Or "Im an artist". They dont say "Im Angela Davis or one of the weather underground" . Which is what you exspect from activists.You are wanting your idols to actually be heros instead of ****ed up people working out their own demons,or spreading ****ty sunny pop tunes.

*muffled applause from beneath the floor under Roxy's feet*