Should Politics Be Kept Out of Music?

Do artists have the right to discuss and criticise political movements, parties or agendas?

The rock and metal world has been no stranger to controversy. From shocking imagery, loud aggressive music and a very prominent anti establishment attitude, many have dubbed rock and metal as mere vulgar and inappropriate noise, and the lyrics are no different. Throughout the genre’s entire history, it’s lyrical content is often the first target of criticism, be it from politicians, religious movements or concerned parents.

Artists like Black Sabbath, Marilyn Manson and Judas Priest have all come under fire from concerned parents and politicians. Many feared their music inspired negative behaviour in it’s listeners and actively promoted Satanism. All three of these artists have had to face the courtroom to defend themselves against all kinds of allegations. Judas Priest famously went to court in 1990 under charges of promoting violence and encouraging two of their listeners to attempt suicide.

Guns N’ Roses and Motley Crue have been called out on numerous occasions for their lyrical content as well. With a heavy focus on sex and drugs, many concerned listeners found themselves worried that this outrageous, vulgar and inappropriate lifestyle might bleed through the speakers and encourage others to adopt said lifestyle for themselves.

And of course, there are artists like Rage Against The Machine and N.W.A. who were constantly under fire for their strong political beliefs and anti establishment ideologies. There is an argument to be had on the divide that is apparent among more politically fuelled artists, and that divide is still present to this day. 2020 saw the rise of Rage Against The Machine’s biggest hit ‘Killing In The Name Of’ re-emerging into the charts following the explosion of the Black Lives Matter movement. And once again this saw many people divided on the band and their beliefs, which in turn led the age old questions, should musicians stay out of politics?

For many fans, rock, metal, rap and hip hop are viewed as the antithesis of politics, and an means of escape from a ideological world. However, where some seek escape from political discussions in their music, others come to hear the messages of these political groups, again embracing the anti-establishment culture that comes alongside these genres. Needless to say, this causes huge divides between the fans themselves and what they believe. Just take a look at the ‘no vaccine — no gig’ policy with the Foo Fighters, which saw both praise and protests.

When it comes to this discussion it really begins with the artists themselves. It’s not just a matter of discussing their political beliefs, it’s how they actually go about doing it. There are two primary components that all of strongest political musicians share. The first is their origins and establishment into the music community, and the second is a genuine knowledge and understanding of the topics they discuss. These two components are key when it comes generating attention and allowing fans to take both the music and what it represents seriously.

Let’s dive into the first component, origins and establishment. It is one thing for an artist to dive into politics after they have found musical success, it is another thing entirely for an artist to establish their political ideologies from the get go. There are countless bands who’s image, reputation and attitude have been almost entirely politically driven from their inception. Key examples of this are Black Flag, Megadeth, Public Enemy, Pu$$y Riot and virtually every punk rock band like The Sex Pistols and even The Clash. However, arguably the two strongest and most powerful politically fuelled artists are the innovative rap rock group Rage Against The Machine and Hip Hop legends N.W.A..

Not only do RATM and N.W.A. share the same political ideologies, but also have the same key components that make a strong political artist. Returning to the first component, establishment and origin, both bands come from similar backgrounds and upbringings. Where they may have formed on different sides of the American coastline (RATM from Los Angeles and N.W.A. from New York) both groups were subjected to severe racial inequality and discrimination. Members of N.W.A. in particular were famously harassed and even arrested by local police forces on numerous occasions, simply due to their skin colour. This was a topic strongly covered by both artists throughout their careers, and sadly it is a topic that is still relevant today.

Before they even formed these issues were being faced by virtually every member of each group. This was one of the key motivations for them to drive forward and establish themselves as a powerful political voice and a force to be reckoned with. The entire idea and formation of each band was born out of political agendas, from the music, the attitude to even their names. Rage Against The Machine perfectly sums up the attitude and anger the band felt towards the society and political system they found themselves trapped in, feeling like clogs turning in a machine. Whereas, N.W.A., or N*****s With Attitude, see the band embrace the racial abuse thrown towards them, using it to empower themselves and show the world they will not be silenced and they are ready to fight back.

Even their debut albums share this approach, with RATM self titled debut and N.W.A. ‘s ‘Straight Outta Compton’, these titles speak for themselves and let the listener know what they’re about to get themselves into. They don’t hide their message, they don’t shy away from their beliefs, it is the forefront of each band. The music was secondary to the ideologies, it was simply a vehicle to voice their opinions and it became a voice for others to stand alongside with. Both established themselves immediately as political forces, and politics was their entire shtick.

Then we have the second component, knowledge and understanding of the topics they discuss. As previously mentioned both bands formed in an era of racial inequality, from areas where police brutality and discrimination was extremely prominent. N.W.A. formed and grew up in Compton New York, an area famously poverty ridden and somewhere with a large ethnic population. Years growing up in and around Compton, N.W.A. where both witness to and victim of countless acts of violence and discrimination from local authorities, primarily the NYPD. The same is said of RATM on the other side of the country, partially towards lead vocalist Zack De La Rocha and guitarist Tom Morello. On top of that, Morello famously studied political science at Harvard University, where he claimed to be the only person of colour in his class. This degree is something the guitarist often use as a weapon to shut down people who accuse RATM for being too political.

Needless to say, both RATM and N.W.A. seem to know what they’re talking about, and seem to be doing so in very similar ways. Aside from the backing music, both debut albums are incredibly similar lyrically, only coming out four years apart from each other. Just compare the lyrics from N.W.A.’s ‘Fuck The Police’ and RATM’s ‘Killing In The Name Of’.

“Fuck the police comin’ straight from the underground, A Young n***a got it bad ’cause I’m brown” — N.W.A. ‘Fuck The Police’.

“Those who died are justified, For wearing the badge, They’re the chosen whites” — Rage Against The Machine ‘Killing In The Name Of’.

These are artists that have made a career of politically fuelled music to great success, but are there artists that should avoid politics? Where there are many musicians that use their music to voice their beliefs, there are just as many who do so after gaining mainstream success. Do these artists also have the right to discuss politics even if the music itself doesn’t relate to their ideologies? Again, that depends on how this is done. In regards to artists who have come under fire for this, the strongest candidate is probably rock guitarist and singer Ted Nugent.

Where Ted Nugent is now considered a political activist, originally his music was virtually politics free. Before going solo, he was the lead guitarist of the psychedelic and hard rock band The Amboy Dukes which formed in 1963. Into the 70s he primarily pursued a solo career, and was predominantly known for his shreddy blues infused guitar style. This of course has led to a huge hit the musicians popularity once politics came into the picture.

After Nugent established himself as a blues based hard rock guitarist, fans became very divided when he became a very active activist for the American Republican party. This primarily began in the 1990s, when Nugent actively promoted the Republican party and often spoke about his pro gun beliefs. As you can imagine, many who came for the hard rock and bluesy guitar solos, quickly ended up leaving once the political speeches became more and more common.

Many fans online who still enjoy his music are now hesitant to see him live. Fans may enjoy the songs, but not the constant stream of political speeches, rants and tirades that occur between them. One minute you’re listening to ‘Cat Scratch Fever’ and ‘Wang Dang Sweet Poontang’ (yes that last one is a real song), and the next he’s pulled out machine guns on stage and started yelling insults towards famous democrats. Not only is this completely unrelated to the music that he plays, but lacks all of the key components that made bands like RATM and N.W.A. so powerful.

The same could be said of any band or musician who discusses their political views between songs live. More often than not, if an artist’s music does not relate to politics in any way, and said artists begins to talk about politics, it completely divides their audience. Not only that, but when your songs don’t relate to your beliefs it can come across as incredibly preachy and just forceful. Just take a look at some of the festivals like Reading or 2000 Trees. The amount of artists who discuss politics between songs seems to be growing more and more. At the end of the day, if your music is completely unrelated to politics, chances are the thousands of drunk teenagers who go to Reading Festival aren’t interested to hear your political opinions. It would be like going to see AC/DC to hear ‘Back In Black’ only to then listen to them discuss Brexit halfway through their set, it just wouldn’t make sense.

So can artists discuss politics, even if their band isn’t politically based? Again it depends on how it’s done. Myles Kennedy is a primary example of someone who discusses his belief subtly. Kennedy himself has confirmed he has strong beliefs in regards to organised religion. He himself grew up in a Christian Scientist household, and as such developed many issues with both Christian Scientists and religion as a whole. However, Kennedy never discusses these issues directly but always lays it subtly into his lyrics, but never in a demeaning or discriminatory way.

Listen to Alter Bridge’s song ‘Words Darker Than Their Wings’, a song where Kennedy and guitarist Mark Tremonti have a lyrical debate. Tremonti from the viewpoint of a believer and Kennedy from the viewpoint of an atheist. Both discuss their beliefs respectfully, never insulting or shaming the beliefs of others. The same could be said of Kennedy’s solo albums, ‘Year of the Tiger’ tackling religion and ‘The Ides of March’ talking politics. One of Kennedy’s longtime collaborators Slash has also done this. In 2018 he named one of his album’s ‘Living The Dream’ as a tongue and cheek statement regarding the political state of the world when he were recording the album. Again keeping it subtle without picking sides.

So when it comes to music and politics, it really depends on who the artist is and how they discuss it. When it comes down to it, everyone has the right to talk about their beliefs and opinions, but at the same time freedom of speech does come at a cost. If you are going to discuss highly sensitive and controversial political topics, expect controversy and backlash to come back. Whether you like it or not, there is not a single person on the planet that shares every belief that you hold dear, and where you have the right to discuss these beliefs, others have the right to disagree. Politics has always divided and alienated people and music is no different. Politics may be controversial, but if it isn’t discussed, then nothing changes. It’s simply a matter of how you are going to start the debate, and how far you are willing to go to fight for your beliefs.