Which musicians get to be political and what is at stake when they do?

The threat of backlash looms when you find the courage to ignite political conversations. Kendrick Lamar is one artist applauded for conscious lyricism and a smart-witted approach to rap. But his grand denunciation of the overturning of Roe v Wade at his Glastonbury set has faced criticism for being merely performative, given Kodak Black’s feature on his latest album, who only last year pled guilty to the assault and battery of a teenage girl. The same hypocrisy tainted ‘Donda’ as Kanye chose to feature accused rapist and abuser, Marilyn Manson. The choice to associate with these denounced artists tacitly implies that musical collaboration trump women’s rights. Yet neither artist and the corresponding albums experienced any impactful retaliation. Mumford & Son’s Winston Marshall realised a different fate after tweeting admiration for a book by a right-wing figure, he found himself under fire for endorsing fascism, and consequently ‘cancelled’. The controversy led the banjoist to resign from the band after 14 years. In these instances, it appears that public opinion weighs heavier on stances on partisan party politics as opposed to tacit actions relating to social issues.

Artists endorsing political ideologies, parties and candidates isn’t a rarity, JME, Billy Bragg, The Clash, and Cardi B are just a few. Higher engagement coincides with heavily polarised party politics, where there is greater responsibility for those with a platform to utilise it as a tool for social activism, although transparency isn’t always appreciated. Late last year Cardi B took a political hiatus after the bullying she encountered from both Republicans and Democrats. Attacks included comparison to Melania Trump, ridicule by right-wing critics branding her as ‘illiterate’ and ‘dumb’, and a questioning of her integrity as a role model due to the sexually-empowered music she creates. This is a case in point of how politics can be elitist, undermining the opinion of those from underprivileged backgrounds regardless of their current status. More so, the potential for the political to become personal when you are a woman who fails to meet projected standards of womanhood. 

Kanye is another artist unafraid to indulge in sharing his political views regardless of how provocative they are.  Despite the relentless criticism he received since he declared his support of Trump’s presidency, in that same period he was the most commercially successful he’s ever been. In 2019, he was even the highest paid hip-hop artist globally. Perhaps the crème de la crème calibre of artists, the pioneers, most critically acclaimed, and ‘voices of a generation’, receive immunity by default. Just like the banks in the 2008 global financial crisis, they are simply ‘too big to fail’. Diehard fans will profess their unwavering love and support no matter how much they disagree with their idol’s politics. 

Protest music has always been a longstanding and forceful instrument in exerting political opinion. ‘Born in the USA’ by Bruce Springsteen, is not a patriotic anthem as the name indicates but rather a condemnation of the war in Vietnam from the perspective of a veteran. ‘Killing in the Name’ by Rage Against the Machine is a call for revolution against abuses of power, inspired by the case of Rodney King. Notably, both songs set out to challenge social injustices the artists were witness to, as opposed to their own lived experiences. 

Arguably, the founding essence of hip-hop was protest - a vessel for narratives of racism and poverty, highlighting socio-political and economic issues through lived experiences. N.W.A.’s ‘Fuck the Police’ - was born as a weapon of defence against racial profiling and police brutality. The track was met with threats of legal action pre-release and a complaint from the FBI post-release, reflecting a desire to silence and diminish the group’s perspectives. In contrast to Springsteen and Rage Against the Machine, N.W.A.'s music mirrored their very own experiences. Far from just voicing an opinion, they quite literally become a megaphone to wider society on problems that detrimentally impacted their lives and their communities. There’s an irreplicable power in defiant music straight from the source; within its rawness it’s dangerous, as it holds a mirror to the ugliness which prevails in our society, and threatens institutions which refuse to accept accountability in their role to play. But ultimately, its beauty lies in the fact it transcends time. Socio-political issues do not dissolve overnight but take generations to tackle, and so defiant anthems will continue to be championed until they no longer serve their purpose. 

It’s not always necessary, and at times misguided for musicians to declare their political views, but it remains indisputably gutsy to share these views with the world, risks knowingly calculated. It’s apparent that the political sphere is not an even playing field, with identity playing a huge role in determining whether musicians want to be politically active, and more so, the reception of their activism when they do. Still it remains that politics subconsciously drips into every facet of life, every day acts correspond to our belief systems – where we buy from, what we eat, the art we appreciate. In the very same notion, whether or not musicians desire to be political, politics can manifest itself within the art they create, and it’s our responsibility as the listener, to read between the lines.   

Article written by Jessica Rogers