Ah, the conundrum we always have when our rock gods reveal themselves to be all too human, or even reprobates and sociopaths. Do we throw the music out with the artist?
I read a lot of rock autobiographies and biographies and have to admit that I have really struggled with this dilemma myself, again and again.
Some artists have been serial abusers, some have put others in the hospital or even killed people, some have engaged in incest, quite a few have taken advantage of underage groupies, and so on.
But then so many artists were victims of crappy and even abusive childhoods, and many have succumbed to alcohol and drugs.
Not an excuse, but it does throw up a dilemma given how many artists have done 'things' and where one draws the line. There are artists I can't listen to, knowing things they have done. So I can certainly understand having that reaction.
One “test” is whether the song is royalty free, or you have to pay a streaming service or buy a physical record or album. I could understand covering studio costs and other costs, but past that is it really a sincere protest or just a commercial venture, giving the “sheep” what they’re willing to pay for?
I still don't have a single definition for a protest song, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
Taking another swing at it, I would suggest that a protest song should:
1) Attempt to persuade the listener of something.
2) Position the listener in opposition (in protest) to a larger or more powerful force (or trend).
-- I say this because I can't think of Toby Kieth's "Courtesy of The Red White and Blue" as a protest song, but would think of "Okie from Muskogee" as a protest song (or "Rich Men North of Richmond" -- though it isn't a good protest song).
3) Address an issue of current political salience
-- for example you could think of "Brown Baby" as a protest song in it's time, but it feels less like one now because it doesn't speak to an active current debate.
Oddly from your list the song that I think of as most marginally a protest song is, "Big Yellow Taxi." Aside from the quotable lines, I don't feel like it attempts much persuasion, but your post on the song did an admirable job of making the argument in its favor.
Edited to add: The obvious question about my #2, is whether protesting human stupidity or cruelty counts. I think that depends on whether the cruelty is part of a broader force (the Country Joe and the Fish untitled song would count)
Allow me to push back a bit in an effort to test things in the search for a definition.
Can we not protest even though we have no hope of persuading anyone? Isn't that like a howl in the wilderness, a cry of pain, a wail of despair? A song can even be a lament that by its very nature is a protest of what is.
Re 2, is it a larger or more powerful force, or is it something you personally are unwilling or unequipped to fight? Something you feel overcome by? (What is a more powerful force for some is inconsequential to others, depending on circumstances or place in society.)
Which leads to 3 and whether it's political or personal. For example, when it comes to inequity or inequality, it's striking how often individuals and groups see things so differently. What I see as discrimination could be what you see as a simply bad behavior by a workplace psychopath. Is it about agreement on a shared reality, or can it be one individual's protest against some aspect of their environment or the Man?
Good questions. Let's see if we can think of some specific examples.
I would not, for example, call the Who's "My Generation" a protest song ("Won't Get Fooled Again" would be a borderline case for me. I wouldn't call it a protest song, but I wouldn't argue to strongly for that position).
I think there's also going to be tough cases when it comes to personal protest songs. What do you think, for example, about "I'm About To Whip Somebody's Ass"?
That could certainly be of comfort and support to someone frustrated at a terrible situation but I would be inclined to not call it a protest song (because it doesn't speak to any larger forces), but I think that's an interesting discussion.
I would say My Generation is a protest against the behavior of the older generation putting down the younger generation. I would argue that a protest song doesn't have to spell out that it's a protest for that to be implicit in the lyrics.
I'm About to Whip Somebody's Ass is quite funny -- never heard this before. There is definitely a protest against someone's behavior and a promise to do something about it if that person doesn't leave them alone. Is it a protest song? Depends on the definition, I would say.
I think it's good to find points of disagreement; it provides a chance to test our intuitions.
As an initial note almost any song could function as a protest for the right person in the right circumstance. I think that if we're talking about a category of "protest songs" we're thinking about songs that would be generally recognized or function as protest songs.
I think the point at which our intuitions differ is that I'm faster to say that something doesn't count as a protest when it becomes too diffuse or not political, but I'm not certain where to draw the lines.
Thinking about "My Generation" would you call the Who cover of "Young Man's Blues" a protest song? It expresses a similar sentiment, but in a very different framing.
Similarly, "I'm About To Whip Somebody's Ass" is great and I mentioned it because it does offer a feeling of solidarity (which puts it into the protest song discussion). Consider as a parallel Hamell on Trial's "I Hate Your Kid" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCp5fTZO_BM
Would you group that with "I'm About To Whip Somebody's Ass" (and say that either both or neither are protest songs) or would you draw a distinction between them and, if so, how you would draw that line? (and, that would be the same question I would ask about "My Generation" and "Young Man's Blues" -- group them or, if not, how would you distinguish between them).
FWIW, I would distinguish between Whip Somebody's Ass and I hate your Kid based on the implied power dynamics. The former is about work, and thus operating within the confines of the organization (but I still lean towards calling neither a protest song).
A difference between "My Generation" and "Young Man's Blues" is that the latter is aware that both money and physical strength are unfairly distributed and is not purely on the side of the Young man (and, interestingly, the Who version is more sympathetic to the Young man than the Mose Allison original)
Other comments by Daniel and Michael seem to be grappling with some of your points. Daniel questions whether there's a distinction between social commentary and protest, while Michael argues that protest should be considered to be within the purview of the listener or interpreter, not a 'gatekeeper' who decides what qualifies as protest.
I myself would definitely consider "Young Man's Blues" as a protest against a society in which young men can no longer make it the way that their parents' generation could, and "I Hate Your Kid" as a protest against parents who allow their kids to become hellions and do nothing to curb them. So I would say that I fall in the 'yes, social commentary is a form of protest' camp, but I also fall in the permissive 'it's up to you to define protest for yourself' camp as well.
I must also admit that I read the lyrics rather than listen to the song to interpet them, as the music distracts me from 'getting' the words. This may or may not align with how the song was developed, but we do know that a performance can change the intention of the songwriter, so I don't see a problem with doing this.
That makes sense (and there's no rush -- we're not going to figure out a definitive answer anytime soon, but it's interesting to push and see what moves).
I would describe, I Hate Your Kid as poking fun, or mocking and see that as different than protest (as you mentioned in a reply to Daniel), but I'm not sure exactly how to make that distinction.
It raises the question if any song sung or performed by someone can be a protest song by virtue of who is actually singing it. Are songs about ambiguity in life protest songs? How about when someone associated with a specific sex or gender identity performs a song not specifically intended for or written by someone of that sex/gender identity? Remember when that was never done? Some are, or at least were, received as protest songs. How about Joplin doing "Me and Bobby McGee"? Or the Village People's YMCA? Linda Ronstadt and "Tumbling Dice"? Or Aretha doing Redding's "Respect". Tina Turner doing "Under My Thumb"? Tori Amos' entire "Strange Little Girls" album?
Good question! We see the same in theater, the deliberate performance by a person(s) not intended to perform a particular role or piece. I would say implicit in that performance of the song or role is protest against typecasting and stereotyping of some sort and the willingness and courage to defy the assumptions and expectations.
I always come back to a position that 'official' and acknowledged protest songs are those that wear their protest on their sleeve or even shout them to the world, but a lot of songs are quiet and effective protest songs by virtue of their stance against something that the performer believes needs to change. But that's my take and clearly not everyone shares that view.
So are all punk rock songs protest songs? Is punk a genre of music, or like rock is every song possibly about protesting about the man and society and societal norms?
Exactly! That is the question. Was rock 'n' roll in and of itself born out of protest against the status quo and occupied that role until it became co-opted by the Establishment (the Man) and eventually corrupted beyond redemption? Finn Dewey -- a fun 'authority' -- claims in School of Rock that it was corrupted by the rise of MTV. But it's more likely the seeds were much earlier with the saturation of homes with television and the rise of superstars like Elvis, the Beatles, and later Michael Jackson etc. who became global commodities. (I remember in the 80s seeing posters of Michael Jackson in an isolated village without electricity or running water in rural Africa.)
Or, did rock 'n' roll morph into different forms and roles, with some sub-genres carrying on the original purpose and some arising, like metal, punk rock, and grunge, when even those sub-genres were 'forgetting' what it was supposed to be all about?
I'm not an expert in the history of rock 'n' roll, but I do enjoy speculating on a genre that spans my own personal existence and which means a great deal to me. I wouldn't normally try to define 'protest song,' but there were some 'protests' at songs that were being included, which provoked this attempt at defining it. Fun to grapple with. Appreciate the questions the provoke further thinking. Or happy to hear your own personal take on it.
Well, I think the band Boston, the first entirely corporate mandated band, put an end to all that before MTV. Name the protest song on anything they did in the 70’s, 80’s or beyond. But yeah the Elvis Christmas special where he sang “In The Ghetto” was a protest song, but what about? Irrelevance? A bad career trajectory? Anger about poor Blacks in America? The Singer Sewing Machine Company? And how about The Beatles stern warning from Ed Sullivan? Is a protest song always context oriented? When Elvis was gyrating was he protesting, or just dancing?
1) The performance (or the circumstances) can make a protest
and
2) If we start talking about every punk song or every rock song as a protest song it's a sign that we've expanded the definition too broadly to be useful.
It would be like asking, "is every rock song a blues song" since the blues were one of the key threads in the development of Rock and Roll. You could make an argument for "yes" but in doing so you also make "blues" a no longer useful category.
Similarly, I find myself wanting to think that it's possible to define a narrower category of "protest songs" which represent a (somewhat) distinct grouping within a broader body of music while still recognizing that they will still share characteristics with songs that we don't include in the "protest song" category.
One example I was thinking of is "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" which definitely has overlap with protest music (and was covered by Joan Baez) but, for me, I wouldn't call it a "protest song" -- in part because there's so much disagreement about what it means: https://slate.com/culture/2020/08/night-they-drove-old-dixie-down-band-confederate.html
All good points, Nick. I also prefer a narrower definition. I'll be struggling with that for a post to come out next week. So it's good to have gotten your thoughts. All grist for the mill!
To name a thing is to make it so (protest song) and yet the song speaks for itself. The moment we call it something else, someone is going to protest.
The origins of rock and roll are debatable (before or after the electric guitar?) but there have always been protests and songs are the emotional result of circumstances e.g. Woody Guthrie and the Dust Bowl era.
Agree there have always been protests and songs expressing those sentiments, but the question on the table is whether rock and roll as a genre is by definition about protest. When you look at its roots in rhythm and blues, folk, gospel, soul, country, or what have you, wouldn't that make sense given that all of these genres reflect hard circumstances -- as opposed to more classical forms of music reflecting elite interests, dynamics, and circumstances?
When we think about rock and roll love songs, are they the same as those that come out of pop? Or is there an undertone or message of yearning, despair, or some other hard to manage emotion (rather than just having that loving feeling)?
Just puttin' a burr under the saddle since defining it might be elusive. But isn't rock and roll itself a rebellion against contemporary culture? Elvis Presley's gyrating hips caused a generational split, the Beatles were like the anti-Christ come to our shores. These artists know exactly what they are doing, and the protest goes on.
Yes, I think you could argue that. The whole genre could be seen as protest and rebellion, until it slowly but surely became part of the establishment and began to lose its credibility, with punk and grunge only momentarily reversing that and metal fighting hard to retain its rebel credentials.
When I think about it, Disco seemed very much a protest aimed at rock and roll, Punk a resistance against both and rap a protest against all of the above.
Is this resistance from one group toward another, or is it compliance within one's own group, or both, or neither?
Great questions. They do seem to be social movements reflected in music, dress, and lifestyle and reactions to what was happening in the environment. I will have to read more on this!
I see Rundgren’s song more as social commentary than a protest song but that begs the question…is there a difference? Is the blues artist singing “why you do me so bad” a protest song? Are the songs in the Rage Against the Machine’s catalog protest songs? Ministry has made a career the past 20 years of musical commentary on first Bush, then Trump. I have a tendency to think there’s a nuance there somewhere. It’s interesting to see the comments though. If an artist being “likeable” or a “good person “ was the sole criteria for financial success, the list of top grossing musical acts would look a lot different.
Yes, I think you've put your finger on the key issue of whether describing an unacceptable or intolerable situation or circumstance -- social commentary as you call it -- is the same as a protest. It can often be impolitic and even dangerous to outright protest something, whereas describing or poking fun at it is a far safer way to, in effect, protest it. So that is a valid question -- is there a difference?
I have to say that there was a period in my life when I worked with some very influential people who were trying to change the world in positive ways, but I didn't see them on a personal level as positive role models. As it seems you've also observed, there can be a dichotomous relationship between ambition, effectiveness, and success on one hand and niceness and goodness on the other. They're not always mutually exclusive, but often enough.
It’s been my observation based upon the 25 years I worked in the entertainment industry that the most creative individuals have a “screw loose” somewhere. I don’t say that in a negative way. There are performers that are “dearly beloved” by their fans who were the worst behind the scenes. Conversely there were artists perceived by the public to be jerks who were actually surprisingly pleasant. Money, power and fame do crazy things to people.
You've had a front row seat to all that and it sounds like it was fascinating.
The divergent thinking of the highly creative in contravention to accepted practice and the status quo also has to play some role. When you see the world in a different way, you have to have ego to persist in the face of so much backlash and so much effort to get you back in line. 'Good' girls and boys are supposed to behave and draw within the lines. So it's not surprising that many rock stars claim to have not done well at school and not fit in, Todd Rundgren being a case in point, and probably had to develop a strong ego to follow their path and not be squelched.
Which at some point, as you point out, can be influenced in crazy directions by money, power, and fame. But I also wonder how much the people around the famous, wanting to control or have a piece of them, in some way subvert or prevent any efforts at normalcy or niceness. A reason maybe why so many seem to cling to friends from before they became famous.
Yes everything you said has merit. I think Rundgren was also influenced by his physical persona. He did call his 1970 album Runt. I went back and listened to his first group called Nazz. Good album although the second, Nazz Nazz was better. I never had the opportunity to work with him as that was prior to me kicking off my career. I did see him a couple times at festivals or events.
Your point about the hangers on is very accurate. Dealing with them was always a source of consternation for me. Most of my directives came from artist management, and quite often went in opposition to what the artist wanted. Case in point. I once threw Axl Roses brother out of a backstage area. The management wanted only authorized personnel there. The tour had just started and I didn’t know the players. Everyone got a kick out of it. Axl was pissed, not because he liked his brother (he didn’t), but he took it as a personal diss. I got along well with the rest of the band, but never Axl. He doesn’t get along with anyone so no big deal. I ran into Slash at Hellfest in 2018 and he still remembered. I was the guy who told Axl to “get fucked” when he tried to yell at me. The band enjoyed that I guess.
You sure had your work cut out for you, being in the middle between artist management and rock stars. I'm betting it was lucrative enough to make it worthwhile, as it sounds like quite a challenging position.
I once got hired by an organization who seconded me to their funding agency, where my job was to oversee the work of the people who hired me. I found it really tricky, especially given that I was supervising men with egos and attitudes, so I can relate!
You might be interested in Todd's book, as he talks about his view that producers work for the artist or band but often have to do what they feel is in the artist's best interest rather than what the artist wants or demands. Another tricky position to be in. He often brought them success and money, which makes it easier to forgive and forget and work together again.
You know exactly what I’m talking about then. You’re caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There’s no win.
It’s funny you should mention compensation. When I had the conversation with Slash in 2018 he asked me what I made when I was with them. Turns out that my salary and per diem amounted to more than the amount he was given as management was just allocating each of the band a living expense at the time.
I will look up the Rundgren book.
You’re spot on about producers too. Another thankless job. The artist always thinks he hears and knows best. Problem was that a lot of them were so “medicated” they had no grasp of what they’re likely were listening to. A big issue was when they couldn’t perform adequately and musicians had to be enlisted to actually complete the recording process. My mother forced me to become a very accomplished piano player so I even played keyboards in a few sessions. I never got that great on the guitar but I was certainly given tips from some of the best.
Personally, I don't think anybody should be the gatekeeper of what is or isn't a protest song. What it says or how it is interpreted by one person is just as valid as it is to the next, even if they differ in interpretation.
Some protest songs are obvious—Rage Against the Machine's "Killing In the Name Of" or Country Joe & The Fish's "An Untitled Protest," for example. Others may be far more subtle. REM's "Cuyahoga" is a song about how we have, and are, killing our environment. However, many people today might not realize that simply because the story of the Cuyahoga River as a symbol of man's poisoning of nature is 55+ years old.
And yet other songs may be interpreted by the listener in a way that was never the original intent of the song, but perhaps it becomes a protest to the listener—for example, a song that helps somebody feel empowered to stand up for something, think differently, to interrupt microaggressions, or even to walk out of an abusive or toxic relationship. That all becomes a form of protest against something.
I also firmly believe that what a piece of art says to you is just as valid, if not even more so, than the artist's reasons for creating it. Ultimately, you are the listener or viewer of the art. Educating oneself on the why behind the piece is always important, but it never means one's interpretation is wrong or invalid. It is subjective, and there is already far too much gatekeeping in the arts.
Yes, a really good point, Michael. There is a distinction between what is intended by the artist and what is interpreted by the listener -- and it's not the role of a gatekeeper to take on the role of deciding whether something is or isn't a form of protest in the process of either creating or receiving.
Also take your point that listeners may hear a song but never get the protest embodied in the music or lyrics. I know as a child I heard many protest songs and never knew that's what they were, just knew that I liked them as songs.
We could even extend this to say that there can be a difference in the intention of the songwriter and the interpretation of the artist or group performing it. I can't think of examples at the moment, but songs can be interpreted and performed in radically different ways by artists and given a range of meanings.
I really appreciate your examples, which I think clarify these different levels of 'protest'.
Great tune. It can be a protest song if you want it to be.
To each his own. I have a bias against Todd, who mistreated our college newspaper staff when he played at our school.
Ah, the conundrum we always have when our rock gods reveal themselves to be all too human, or even reprobates and sociopaths. Do we throw the music out with the artist?
Art is art. Artists are another story.
I read a lot of rock autobiographies and biographies and have to admit that I have really struggled with this dilemma myself, again and again.
Some artists have been serial abusers, some have put others in the hospital or even killed people, some have engaged in incest, quite a few have taken advantage of underage groupies, and so on.
But then so many artists were victims of crappy and even abusive childhoods, and many have succumbed to alcohol and drugs.
Not an excuse, but it does throw up a dilemma given how many artists have done 'things' and where one draws the line. There are artists I can't listen to, knowing things they have done. So I can certainly understand having that reaction.
Exactly.
I love this Todd song, as well as “Real Man” (and others of course)…I’d call this a protest song!
One “test” is whether the song is royalty free, or you have to pay a streaming service or buy a physical record or album. I could understand covering studio costs and other costs, but past that is it really a sincere protest or just a commercial venture, giving the “sheep” what they’re willing to pay for?
example: “Blowin’ In The Wind” - “Copyright © 1962 by Warner Bros. Inc.; renewed 1990 by Special Rider Music”
Just sayin’…
Interesting point and another factor to consider in defining protest music.
I still don't have a single definition for a protest song, but it's an interesting thing to think about.
Taking another swing at it, I would suggest that a protest song should:
1) Attempt to persuade the listener of something.
2) Position the listener in opposition (in protest) to a larger or more powerful force (or trend).
-- I say this because I can't think of Toby Kieth's "Courtesy of The Red White and Blue" as a protest song, but would think of "Okie from Muskogee" as a protest song (or "Rich Men North of Richmond" -- though it isn't a good protest song).
3) Address an issue of current political salience
-- for example you could think of "Brown Baby" as a protest song in it's time, but it feels less like one now because it doesn't speak to an active current debate.
Oddly from your list the song that I think of as most marginally a protest song is, "Big Yellow Taxi." Aside from the quotable lines, I don't feel like it attempts much persuasion, but your post on the song did an admirable job of making the argument in its favor.
Edited to add: The obvious question about my #2, is whether protesting human stupidity or cruelty counts. I think that depends on whether the cruelty is part of a broader force (the Country Joe and the Fish untitled song would count)
Thanks for that thoughtful response, Nick.
Allow me to push back a bit in an effort to test things in the search for a definition.
Can we not protest even though we have no hope of persuading anyone? Isn't that like a howl in the wilderness, a cry of pain, a wail of despair? A song can even be a lament that by its very nature is a protest of what is.
Re 2, is it a larger or more powerful force, or is it something you personally are unwilling or unequipped to fight? Something you feel overcome by? (What is a more powerful force for some is inconsequential to others, depending on circumstances or place in society.)
Which leads to 3 and whether it's political or personal. For example, when it comes to inequity or inequality, it's striking how often individuals and groups see things so differently. What I see as discrimination could be what you see as a simply bad behavior by a workplace psychopath. Is it about agreement on a shared reality, or can it be one individual's protest against some aspect of their environment or the Man?
Good questions. Let's see if we can think of some specific examples.
I would not, for example, call the Who's "My Generation" a protest song ("Won't Get Fooled Again" would be a borderline case for me. I wouldn't call it a protest song, but I wouldn't argue to strongly for that position).
I think there's also going to be tough cases when it comes to personal protest songs. What do you think, for example, about "I'm About To Whip Somebody's Ass"?
https://soundcloud.com/isaiah-fontaine-640902077/pastor-ray-hagins-im-about-to
That could certainly be of comfort and support to someone frustrated at a terrible situation but I would be inclined to not call it a protest song (because it doesn't speak to any larger forces), but I think that's an interesting discussion.
I would say My Generation is a protest against the behavior of the older generation putting down the younger generation. I would argue that a protest song doesn't have to spell out that it's a protest for that to be implicit in the lyrics.
I'm About to Whip Somebody's Ass is quite funny -- never heard this before. There is definitely a protest against someone's behavior and a promise to do something about it if that person doesn't leave them alone. Is it a protest song? Depends on the definition, I would say.
I think it's good to find points of disagreement; it provides a chance to test our intuitions.
As an initial note almost any song could function as a protest for the right person in the right circumstance. I think that if we're talking about a category of "protest songs" we're thinking about songs that would be generally recognized or function as protest songs.
I think the point at which our intuitions differ is that I'm faster to say that something doesn't count as a protest when it becomes too diffuse or not political, but I'm not certain where to draw the lines.
Thinking about "My Generation" would you call the Who cover of "Young Man's Blues" a protest song? It expresses a similar sentiment, but in a very different framing.
Similarly, "I'm About To Whip Somebody's Ass" is great and I mentioned it because it does offer a feeling of solidarity (which puts it into the protest song discussion). Consider as a parallel Hamell on Trial's "I Hate Your Kid" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCp5fTZO_BM
Would you group that with "I'm About To Whip Somebody's Ass" (and say that either both or neither are protest songs) or would you draw a distinction between them and, if so, how you would draw that line? (and, that would be the same question I would ask about "My Generation" and "Young Man's Blues" -- group them or, if not, how would you distinguish between them).
FWIW, I would distinguish between Whip Somebody's Ass and I hate your Kid based on the implied power dynamics. The former is about work, and thus operating within the confines of the organization (but I still lean towards calling neither a protest song).
A difference between "My Generation" and "Young Man's Blues" is that the latter is aware that both money and physical strength are unfairly distributed and is not purely on the side of the Young man (and, interestingly, the Who version is more sympathetic to the Young man than the Mose Allison original)
Hi Nick, thanks for engaging around this.
Other comments by Daniel and Michael seem to be grappling with some of your points. Daniel questions whether there's a distinction between social commentary and protest, while Michael argues that protest should be considered to be within the purview of the listener or interpreter, not a 'gatekeeper' who decides what qualifies as protest.
I myself would definitely consider "Young Man's Blues" as a protest against a society in which young men can no longer make it the way that their parents' generation could, and "I Hate Your Kid" as a protest against parents who allow their kids to become hellions and do nothing to curb them. So I would say that I fall in the 'yes, social commentary is a form of protest' camp, but I also fall in the permissive 'it's up to you to define protest for yourself' camp as well.
I must also admit that I read the lyrics rather than listen to the song to interpet them, as the music distracts me from 'getting' the words. This may or may not align with how the song was developed, but we do know that a performance can change the intention of the songwriter, so I don't see a problem with doing this.
That makes sense (and there's no rush -- we're not going to figure out a definitive answer anytime soon, but it's interesting to push and see what moves).
I would describe, I Hate Your Kid as poking fun, or mocking and see that as different than protest (as you mentioned in a reply to Daniel), but I'm not sure exactly how to make that distinction.
It raises the question if any song sung or performed by someone can be a protest song by virtue of who is actually singing it. Are songs about ambiguity in life protest songs? How about when someone associated with a specific sex or gender identity performs a song not specifically intended for or written by someone of that sex/gender identity? Remember when that was never done? Some are, or at least were, received as protest songs. How about Joplin doing "Me and Bobby McGee"? Or the Village People's YMCA? Linda Ronstadt and "Tumbling Dice"? Or Aretha doing Redding's "Respect". Tina Turner doing "Under My Thumb"? Tori Amos' entire "Strange Little Girls" album?
Good question! We see the same in theater, the deliberate performance by a person(s) not intended to perform a particular role or piece. I would say implicit in that performance of the song or role is protest against typecasting and stereotyping of some sort and the willingness and courage to defy the assumptions and expectations.
I always come back to a position that 'official' and acknowledged protest songs are those that wear their protest on their sleeve or even shout them to the world, but a lot of songs are quiet and effective protest songs by virtue of their stance against something that the performer believes needs to change. But that's my take and clearly not everyone shares that view.
So are all punk rock songs protest songs? Is punk a genre of music, or like rock is every song possibly about protesting about the man and society and societal norms?
Exactly! That is the question. Was rock 'n' roll in and of itself born out of protest against the status quo and occupied that role until it became co-opted by the Establishment (the Man) and eventually corrupted beyond redemption? Finn Dewey -- a fun 'authority' -- claims in School of Rock that it was corrupted by the rise of MTV. But it's more likely the seeds were much earlier with the saturation of homes with television and the rise of superstars like Elvis, the Beatles, and later Michael Jackson etc. who became global commodities. (I remember in the 80s seeing posters of Michael Jackson in an isolated village without electricity or running water in rural Africa.)
Or, did rock 'n' roll morph into different forms and roles, with some sub-genres carrying on the original purpose and some arising, like metal, punk rock, and grunge, when even those sub-genres were 'forgetting' what it was supposed to be all about?
I'm not an expert in the history of rock 'n' roll, but I do enjoy speculating on a genre that spans my own personal existence and which means a great deal to me. I wouldn't normally try to define 'protest song,' but there were some 'protests' at songs that were being included, which provoked this attempt at defining it. Fun to grapple with. Appreciate the questions the provoke further thinking. Or happy to hear your own personal take on it.
Well, I think the band Boston, the first entirely corporate mandated band, put an end to all that before MTV. Name the protest song on anything they did in the 70’s, 80’s or beyond. But yeah the Elvis Christmas special where he sang “In The Ghetto” was a protest song, but what about? Irrelevance? A bad career trajectory? Anger about poor Blacks in America? The Singer Sewing Machine Company? And how about The Beatles stern warning from Ed Sullivan? Is a protest song always context oriented? When Elvis was gyrating was he protesting, or just dancing?
I don't have a definitive answer but I'd say:
1) The performance (or the circumstances) can make a protest
and
2) If we start talking about every punk song or every rock song as a protest song it's a sign that we've expanded the definition too broadly to be useful.
It would be like asking, "is every rock song a blues song" since the blues were one of the key threads in the development of Rock and Roll. You could make an argument for "yes" but in doing so you also make "blues" a no longer useful category.
Similarly, I find myself wanting to think that it's possible to define a narrower category of "protest songs" which represent a (somewhat) distinct grouping within a broader body of music while still recognizing that they will still share characteristics with songs that we don't include in the "protest song" category.
One example I was thinking of is "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" which definitely has overlap with protest music (and was covered by Joan Baez) but, for me, I wouldn't call it a "protest song" -- in part because there's so much disagreement about what it means: https://slate.com/culture/2020/08/night-they-drove-old-dixie-down-band-confederate.html
All good points, Nick. I also prefer a narrower definition. I'll be struggling with that for a post to come out next week. So it's good to have gotten your thoughts. All grist for the mill!
To name a thing is to make it so (protest song) and yet the song speaks for itself. The moment we call it something else, someone is going to protest.
The origins of rock and roll are debatable (before or after the electric guitar?) but there have always been protests and songs are the emotional result of circumstances e.g. Woody Guthrie and the Dust Bowl era.
I hate being so right about things.
Not so fast there, partner.
Agree there have always been protests and songs expressing those sentiments, but the question on the table is whether rock and roll as a genre is by definition about protest. When you look at its roots in rhythm and blues, folk, gospel, soul, country, or what have you, wouldn't that make sense given that all of these genres reflect hard circumstances -- as opposed to more classical forms of music reflecting elite interests, dynamics, and circumstances?
When we think about rock and roll love songs, are they the same as those that come out of pop? Or is there an undertone or message of yearning, despair, or some other hard to manage emotion (rather than just having that loving feeling)?
Just more questions in the quest for clarity.
Just puttin' a burr under the saddle since defining it might be elusive. But isn't rock and roll itself a rebellion against contemporary culture? Elvis Presley's gyrating hips caused a generational split, the Beatles were like the anti-Christ come to our shores. These artists know exactly what they are doing, and the protest goes on.
Yes, I think you could argue that. The whole genre could be seen as protest and rebellion, until it slowly but surely became part of the establishment and began to lose its credibility, with punk and grunge only momentarily reversing that and metal fighting hard to retain its rebel credentials.
When I think about it, Disco seemed very much a protest aimed at rock and roll, Punk a resistance against both and rap a protest against all of the above.
Is this resistance from one group toward another, or is it compliance within one's own group, or both, or neither?
Maybe it's just about the music.
Great questions. They do seem to be social movements reflected in music, dress, and lifestyle and reactions to what was happening in the environment. I will have to read more on this!
I see Rundgren’s song more as social commentary than a protest song but that begs the question…is there a difference? Is the blues artist singing “why you do me so bad” a protest song? Are the songs in the Rage Against the Machine’s catalog protest songs? Ministry has made a career the past 20 years of musical commentary on first Bush, then Trump. I have a tendency to think there’s a nuance there somewhere. It’s interesting to see the comments though. If an artist being “likeable” or a “good person “ was the sole criteria for financial success, the list of top grossing musical acts would look a lot different.
Yes, I think you've put your finger on the key issue of whether describing an unacceptable or intolerable situation or circumstance -- social commentary as you call it -- is the same as a protest. It can often be impolitic and even dangerous to outright protest something, whereas describing or poking fun at it is a far safer way to, in effect, protest it. So that is a valid question -- is there a difference?
I have to say that there was a period in my life when I worked with some very influential people who were trying to change the world in positive ways, but I didn't see them on a personal level as positive role models. As it seems you've also observed, there can be a dichotomous relationship between ambition, effectiveness, and success on one hand and niceness and goodness on the other. They're not always mutually exclusive, but often enough.
It’s been my observation based upon the 25 years I worked in the entertainment industry that the most creative individuals have a “screw loose” somewhere. I don’t say that in a negative way. There are performers that are “dearly beloved” by their fans who were the worst behind the scenes. Conversely there were artists perceived by the public to be jerks who were actually surprisingly pleasant. Money, power and fame do crazy things to people.
You've had a front row seat to all that and it sounds like it was fascinating.
The divergent thinking of the highly creative in contravention to accepted practice and the status quo also has to play some role. When you see the world in a different way, you have to have ego to persist in the face of so much backlash and so much effort to get you back in line. 'Good' girls and boys are supposed to behave and draw within the lines. So it's not surprising that many rock stars claim to have not done well at school and not fit in, Todd Rundgren being a case in point, and probably had to develop a strong ego to follow their path and not be squelched.
Which at some point, as you point out, can be influenced in crazy directions by money, power, and fame. But I also wonder how much the people around the famous, wanting to control or have a piece of them, in some way subvert or prevent any efforts at normalcy or niceness. A reason maybe why so many seem to cling to friends from before they became famous.
Yes everything you said has merit. I think Rundgren was also influenced by his physical persona. He did call his 1970 album Runt. I went back and listened to his first group called Nazz. Good album although the second, Nazz Nazz was better. I never had the opportunity to work with him as that was prior to me kicking off my career. I did see him a couple times at festivals or events.
Your point about the hangers on is very accurate. Dealing with them was always a source of consternation for me. Most of my directives came from artist management, and quite often went in opposition to what the artist wanted. Case in point. I once threw Axl Roses brother out of a backstage area. The management wanted only authorized personnel there. The tour had just started and I didn’t know the players. Everyone got a kick out of it. Axl was pissed, not because he liked his brother (he didn’t), but he took it as a personal diss. I got along well with the rest of the band, but never Axl. He doesn’t get along with anyone so no big deal. I ran into Slash at Hellfest in 2018 and he still remembered. I was the guy who told Axl to “get fucked” when he tried to yell at me. The band enjoyed that I guess.
You sure had your work cut out for you, being in the middle between artist management and rock stars. I'm betting it was lucrative enough to make it worthwhile, as it sounds like quite a challenging position.
I once got hired by an organization who seconded me to their funding agency, where my job was to oversee the work of the people who hired me. I found it really tricky, especially given that I was supervising men with egos and attitudes, so I can relate!
You might be interested in Todd's book, as he talks about his view that producers work for the artist or band but often have to do what they feel is in the artist's best interest rather than what the artist wants or demands. Another tricky position to be in. He often brought them success and money, which makes it easier to forgive and forget and work together again.
You know exactly what I’m talking about then. You’re caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There’s no win.
It’s funny you should mention compensation. When I had the conversation with Slash in 2018 he asked me what I made when I was with them. Turns out that my salary and per diem amounted to more than the amount he was given as management was just allocating each of the band a living expense at the time.
I will look up the Rundgren book.
You’re spot on about producers too. Another thankless job. The artist always thinks he hears and knows best. Problem was that a lot of them were so “medicated” they had no grasp of what they’re likely were listening to. A big issue was when they couldn’t perform adequately and musicians had to be enlisted to actually complete the recording process. My mother forced me to become a very accomplished piano player so I even played keyboards in a few sessions. I never got that great on the guitar but I was certainly given tips from some of the best.
Personally, I don't think anybody should be the gatekeeper of what is or isn't a protest song. What it says or how it is interpreted by one person is just as valid as it is to the next, even if they differ in interpretation.
Some protest songs are obvious—Rage Against the Machine's "Killing In the Name Of" or Country Joe & The Fish's "An Untitled Protest," for example. Others may be far more subtle. REM's "Cuyahoga" is a song about how we have, and are, killing our environment. However, many people today might not realize that simply because the story of the Cuyahoga River as a symbol of man's poisoning of nature is 55+ years old.
And yet other songs may be interpreted by the listener in a way that was never the original intent of the song, but perhaps it becomes a protest to the listener—for example, a song that helps somebody feel empowered to stand up for something, think differently, to interrupt microaggressions, or even to walk out of an abusive or toxic relationship. That all becomes a form of protest against something.
I also firmly believe that what a piece of art says to you is just as valid, if not even more so, than the artist's reasons for creating it. Ultimately, you are the listener or viewer of the art. Educating oneself on the why behind the piece is always important, but it never means one's interpretation is wrong or invalid. It is subjective, and there is already far too much gatekeeping in the arts.
Just my two cents, however.
Yes, a really good point, Michael. There is a distinction between what is intended by the artist and what is interpreted by the listener -- and it's not the role of a gatekeeper to take on the role of deciding whether something is or isn't a form of protest in the process of either creating or receiving.
Also take your point that listeners may hear a song but never get the protest embodied in the music or lyrics. I know as a child I heard many protest songs and never knew that's what they were, just knew that I liked them as songs.
We could even extend this to say that there can be a difference in the intention of the songwriter and the interpretation of the artist or group performing it. I can't think of examples at the moment, but songs can be interpreted and performed in radically different ways by artists and given a range of meanings.
I really appreciate your examples, which I think clarify these different levels of 'protest'.