ADVERTISEMENT

Should Classic Rock Songs Be Toppled Like Confederate Statues?

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,934
113
Jennifer Finney Boylan
By Jennifer Finney Boylan
Contributing Opinion Writer
A long, long time ago — I can still remember how that music used to make me smile.
“American Pie,” Don McLean’s generation-defining ballad, was released on vinyl 50 years ago this October. The first time I ever heard it, I was with my sister in our kitchen. I was 13. I was eating a bowl of Alpha-Bits cereal. It came on the radio, and my sister — only a year older but centuries cooler — told me, “This is the greatest song ever.”
It’s impossible for me to hear that song now without thinking of her.
But when Patrisha McLean, Don McLean’s ex-wife, hears “American Pie,” she isn’t reminded of golden moments of adolescence or even the classic age of rock ’n’ roll memorialized by the song. Ms. McLean says she was subjected to years of emotional and physical abuse from her former husband.
Ms. McLean was married to her husband for 29 years before the night five years ago that she made a 911 call. In the aftermath, Mr. McLean was arrested on suspicion of domestic violence. He was charged with six misdemeanors; he pleaded guilty to four as part of a plea agreement in which the domestic violence charge would be dismissed after a year. For the other three charges — criminal restraint, criminal mischief and making domestic violence threats — he paid some $3,000 in fines.
Since then, Ms. McLean founded Finding Our Voices, a Maine-based nonprofit dedicated to educating people about domestic abuse and providing services for victims. Meanwhile, Mr. McLean was honored in August with a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. He denies having ever assaulted his wife, and his lawyer has said that he pleaded guilty “not because he was in fact guilty of anything but to provide closure for his family and keep the whole process as private as possible.” His iconic song still plays on the radio.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


The past several years have seen a reassessment of our country’s many mythologies — from the legends of the generals of the Confederacy to the historical glossing over of slaveholding founding fathers. But as we take another look at the sins of our historical figures, we’ve also had to take a hard look at our more immediate past and present, including the behavior of the creators of pop culture. That reassessment extends now to the people who wrote some of our best-loved songs. But what to do with the art left behind? Can I still love their music if I’m appalled by various events in the lives of Johnny Cash or Elvis or Jerry Lee Lewis? Or by Eric Clapton’s racist rants and anti-vaccination activism?
Of course, there is no easy answer here. Even Ms. McLean doesn’t think “American Pie” should be banned from playlists, like some other pieces of classic rock produced by disgraced musicians. Gary Glitter’s “Rock and Roll (Part 2),” more popularly known as “The Hey Song,” for instance, was pulled from airplay after the musician was convicted of possession of child pornography and a series of sex abuse offenses against young girls.
Instead, Ms. McLean told me, she feels we should reconsider how we elevate these artists. It’s the tarnished creators, she said, that we should not celebrate. In other words: The problem with “American Pie” isn’t the song. It’s the singer. “American Pie” remains a great song. In 2016 the Library of Congress selected the original recording for preservation in the National Recording Registry.
Indeed, it would almost be easier if it were just the song. The Rolling Stones quietly removed “Brown Sugar” from their current U.S. tour set list. The track’s racist lyrics, which refer to slave ships and rape, have been controversial since the song was first a hit in 1971 — the same year as “American Pie.” And yet the guitarist Keith Richards, when asked about the removal, seemed a little uneasy with the decision: “I’m trying to figure out with the sisters quite where the beef is. Didn’t they understand this was a song about the horrors of slavery?”
There are a lot of things I revere about “Brown Sugar,” and Mr. Richards’s guitar riffs not least. But I can tell you that in 50 years, it has not once occurred to me that this song might even remotely be about the empowerment of Black women. If the Stones don’t know why the song has to go, does simply removing it from their tour sheet go far enough?

For a lot of baby boomers, it’s painful to realize that some of the songs first lodged in our memories in adolescence really need a second look. And it’s hard to explain why younger versions of ourselves ever thought they were OK in the first place.​

I want to live in a world where I can be moved by art and music and literature without having to come up with elaborate apologies for that work or for its creators.
But does such a world exist? It is hard to think of some of our greatest artists without also thinking of their messy, sometimes destructive lives. In so many cases, it’s the very chaos of those lives that has helped create the art. It’s easy to romanticize that chaos and to ignore the wreckage artists can leave in their wakes.
It was Don McLean, in “American Pie,” who asked if music can save our mortal souls. My guess is probably not. But it can help us to time travel, and not only to our adolescent past. Maybe reconsidering those songs, and their artists, can inspire us to think about the future and how to bring about a world that is more inclusive and more just.

 
Gary Glitter’s “Rock and Roll (Part 2),” more popularly known as “The Hey Song,” for instance, was pulled from airplay after the musician was convicted of possession of child pornography and a series of sex abuse offenses against young girls.

That was done because royalties from stadium use of that song were his main source of income and the industry didn't want to finance his legal defense.
 
Weird how she doesn’t go after the violence in rap. Gee…wonder why?
It’s telling that she chose classic rock as the starting point.

We could start with billionaires, most painters were abusive scumbags.

We could start with intellectuals. Male authors have a terrible record.

We could start with minority art, hip hop is wildly problematic.
 
Jimi Hendrix's statue definitely needs to come down....
large.jpg


" gonna shoot my old lady, caught her mess'n round with another man "...
 
Weird how she doesn’t go after the violence in rap. Gee…wonder why?
No mention of country music either.

I spent 48 dollars last night at the county fair
I throwed out my shoulder but I won her that teddy bear


There’s nothing inherently offensive or criminal about those lyrics, of course. But if we’re going to start banning music then, my God, shouldn’t we start there?
 
The movements to topple such rock songs and confederate statues is what needs to be toppled. Preferably, with blunt force.

If you like celebrating people who got their asses kicked then unceremoniously surrendered with their tails between their legs, go for it.

However, their statues should come down because they were traitors to their country.
 
Statues are honors. Art is art.

That was my first thought too. . . But on the other hand if the creator is still living than our listening also goes to financially enrich him.

So is it good that terrible people are financially enriched despite their terribleness?

That said I don't expect art to get canceled. We didn't cancel out Michael Jackson and there is a good chance he molested children.

R Kelly slept with underaged girls, I'm not sure if his music is still being played or not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sober_teacher
This is why the Republicans won last night. Not because of cancelling music or tearing down statues on their own but the entire culture.

People eventually get sick of stuff like this.

Ehh I'm not sure it's this. Inflation and supply chain issues are getting blamed on Biden and he's not gotten his signature bills passed yet.

While I think there are certainly aspects of the cancel side that can get too extreme, I do think it's a worthwhile discussion to have in this country about who we are honoring in what ways and who we are financially enriching.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
That was my first thought too. . . But on the other hand if the creator is still living than our listening also goes to financially enrich him.

So is it good that terrible people are financially enriched despite their terribleness?

That said I don't expect art to get canceled. We didn't cancel out Michael Jackson and there is a good chance he molested children.

R Kelly slept with underaged girls, I'm not sure if his music is still being played or not.
That’s fair. I think everyone can make individual determinations about what they’re comfortable with.

I haven’t purchased a Picasso since his history of domestic violence was publicized.
 
We should all eat oatmeal and boiled white meat chicken because some people can’t handle spicy foods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goldmom
It’s telling that she chose classic rock as the starting point.

We could start with billionaires, most painters were abusive scumbags.

We could start with intellectuals. Male authors have a terrible record.

We could start with minority art, hip hop is wildly problematic.
Fine example of whataboutism.

What do you think about what she actually had to say?
 
I for the record do agree with you on this. Music shouldn't glorify violence or hate.
What about religious songs and war songs? Some of those definitely glorify violence and/or hate.

Even some sports songs.

Not saying I disagree with you, but you could tread on a lot of toes if you try to get serious about this.
 
Fine example of whataboutism.

What do you think about what she actually had to say?
My opinions are all over this thread. Everyone should make their own determinations about what they’re comfortable with. Broader efforts to remove art are censorship.
 
If you like celebrating people who got their asses kicked then unceremoniously surrendered with their tails between their legs, go for it.

However, their statues should come down because they were traitors to their country.
Did they really get their “asses kicked”? I mean, yeah they lost hands down and I’m glad they lost, but they were heavily outnumbered, had fewer resources and the north suffered more casualties. Doesn’t really qualify as an ass kicking in my book.

Not directed at you, but another one that always gets me is “we kicked their asses”. No dipshits, you had nothing to do with it. Other people won the war a long freaking time ago, then afterwards continued slaughtering a bunch of natives and took more their land.
 
I have a female friend that is very vocal about women's rights and the objectification of women. I do find it puzzling that she occasionally wears a Led Zeppelin tee.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Titus Andronicus
What about religious songs and war songs? Some of those definitely glorify violence and/or hate.

Even some sports songs.

Not saying I disagree with you, but you could tread on a lot of toes if you try to get serious about this.

I'm trying to think of a religious song that glorifies violence or hate. There are sometimes some martial themes such as "Onward Christian Soldiers" but that isn't glorifying violence given that what the song talks about battling against is not human.

War songs are more or less a historical anomaly and are generally confined in their popularity to a time. Again martial themes are not bad, it's the desire to kill or harm specific people or groups of people.
 
You can listen to music and not like the person. Have people quit listening to Michael Jackson songs?

Then again, if it bothers you that much, don't listen to it. Nobody is forcing you to.
That’s not good enough.

censorship is fine as long as it advances a political ideology.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT