#7189 by
SDavis22
Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:25 pm
"bob dylan didn't change society... those kids in the streets protesting while they got there heads cracked did."
- Bob Dylan wasn't out to change society but his initial humanitarian interests, as heard on his early records, were amplified by his generation's call for social change. Popular music, as when Bob Dylan was popular on college campuses during a revolutionary time, can be used to formulate ideas in the minds of its listeners. It can be done through music, news stations, radio stations, newspapers, journals, internet, magazines or any other form of mass media that's digested by millions. They can be a very strong social vehicle to mold the opinions of its viewers for better or worse.
"Ya mean like thinking you can change the world with just your music?"
- I never said I could personally change the world with just my music. I said if I was in the spotlight I would use that kind of influence, if I had any, to try and make social change for the better. One person cannot do that by themselves, but sometimes it takes a leader to forge the necessary path that an oppressive government or whoever else would rather us not take (because it conflicts with their ideology, bank account, etc.). Who can rally the younger generation? Snoop Dogg? Where are the leaders and why aren't their crowds holding modern protests against our government and it's atrocities, not to mention the other ghastly things happening all around the world.
"Making it big is not the same as sharing your music"
- Wrong. If you make it big you are still sharing your music whether people buy it or download it for free or hear it at a friends house or whatever. Clearly one has a better chance at sharing his or her or their music, and hopefully their message, to a larger audience if they were being promoted by a corporate record company (greedy as they are) who can put your art in as many stores, websites, magazines, newspapers, stages, etc. as possible. I would happily give all my money to a record company if I had the chance to record an album, mass produce it, tour, and just spread the art and message to as many people as possible.
If you were not interested in marketing your music then you'd be happy playing your music to yourself in your bedroom and wouldn't feel the need to put a group together, make an album, tour or whatever. And it's the 21st Century so you don't have to worry about cutting your music down on the radio - turn it on... there's no stopping the endless barrage of (stupid) ideas being circulated - if a bunch of fifteen year olds love you, you're in!
And sadly, I don't think many people would do something selfless if they had a billion dollars. Sure, some people would, but it's true that money changes people and most become greedy. Obviously, if everybody had that kind of money then there'd be nobody to save. The people who need to 'pick up the gauntlet' are the 'nobodies' with no money. The kids who had their heads kicked in, as you pointed out earlier, were these very people. But it takes leaders like, say, Martin Luther King Jr. to forge the necessary path society should take to better the lives of everybody. Why couldn't this person, or people, be artists instead of reverends?
Irminsul,
My only opposition to that 'truth' is this: if the critics are smarter than the criticized then the criticized may have somebody worth listening to.
Last edited by SDavis22 on Mon Apr 16, 2007 10:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.