New York Times comment piece about The Beach Boys' politics

[Chocolate Shake Man]

We Americans somehow managed to make "liberal" a synonym for "left wing," which it wasn't originally. 

It still isn't but in the United States the left has been completely disenfranchised and marginalized and as a result being a center-right "liberal" is as far to the left as someone can legitimately go.

[Cam Mott]

I thought Brian revealed recently he voted Repub? Doesn't TM have it's own political party or did I imagine that? If so, I bet Mike and Al are members of that.

[sea of tunes]

I just posted this on the NYTimes website.  After getting home this evening and getting the kiddies to bed, I was able to reflect and try and be a little more lucid and to the point with my thoughts:

The Beach Boys are an incredibly complex group of INDIVIDUALS that, no doubt, have independent thoughts from each other. Just because a faction of the Beach Boys plays at a Mitt Romney fund raiser in 2008 does not mean that the band and Mitt Romney's politics are mutually exclusive. It's also true that they very well may share the same politics.

And, so what if they do? Do conservatives write long diatribes about the odd juxtaposition of their favorite artists and their politics? "Oh, how do I listen to a John Lennon solo record when he hung out with Abbie Hoffman?" I mean, if someone is that short sighted enough to forgo enjoying art for arts sake, it is truly their loss.

Furthermore, in mentioning Lennon, I could mention a laundry list of other boomer musicians that wear their politics on their sleeves and in their lyrics; denounce opposing view points and are rewarded with winks and nods from their peers and critics alike. Then you have the Beach Boys who rarely (if ever) "got political" in their music. Even a masterwork like "SMiLE" is an attempt to explore America through a Mark Twain-esque prism, using humor and positivity along every stop.

Unlike many of his peers, Brian Wilson didn't thrive on writing what I now term "sad old bastard music". He wrote pop music for his time that will stand the test of time.

As Art Garfunkel noted in 2002, "he was rock's gentlest revolutionary".

Put down the politics...and just listen.

[OGoldin]

very nice, jm

[Chocolate Shake Man]

To be honest, I think what this article does well and what a lot of people here aren't quite accounting for, is that art (like people) are political whether they want to be or not. Not announcing your politics in your art is not a non-political act - it's very political and it's even more political to not say anything when Americans were coming home in body bags from Vietnam on a daily basis.

[ontor pertawst]

Well, this is America after all. Where politicians can actually accuse each other of "playing politics" with a straight face.

[rn57]

Son of a gun....Debbie Keil is among the commenters at this NY Times post. She has a low opinion of it, far as I cam tell.

[KittyKat]

I wonder what Melinda thinks when she sees Debbie commenting on things?  Maybe she's one of those cool chicks who doesn't care, because she knows she has her man.

[mabewa]

We Americans somehow managed to make "liberal" a synonym for "left wing," which it wasn't originally. 

It still isn't but in the United States the left has been completely disenfranchised and marginalized and as a result being a center-right "liberal" is as far to the left as someone can legitimately go.

Good point!  I won't argue with you there. 

[Amy B.]

I'm more horrified by some of the comments, like this one claiming that the BB music never evolved:
"Their music only went so far back in the day, and hasn't moved since. ... OK to boring in '64, more boring today. Just like republicans, they never moved on or evolved. Let alone noticed the larger world around them.

[Shady]

I wonder what Melinda thinks when she sees Debbie commenting on things?  Maybe she's one of those cool chicks who doesn't care, because she knows she has her man.

She locks the doors

[BillA]

I always figure that the BBs are the one right-leaning rock band that I really love.  Nothing against right-wing rock bands, it's just that they tend to suck.  But, when I think about it, they are indeed kind of all over the place, especially when you count Carl and Dennis.  Bruce seems to be pretty solidly conservative, Mike leans that way, Brian seems to have no politics at all, Al may be leaning a bit to the left these days, and Dave, who knows.  Count Carl and Dennis, and you've got a pretty wide spectrum. 

And, when you look at their actual lyric content, whenever they get around to writing anything like a protest song (which isn't often), the content tends to be more progressive, at least by American standards.  Stuff like "Trader" or "Looking at Tomorrow" comes to mind.  But most of the stuff that gets labeled left-wing is environmentalists.  And the idea that environmentalist = left wing is extremely American.  Here in Japan, the right wing governor of Osaka (Hashimoto) is a big no-nukes guy, while the right wing governor of Tokyo (Ishihara) is really into limiting greenhouse gases.  Just because Americans have somehow managed to make environmentalism into a left-right issue doesn't make it so. 

By the way, for those who constantly preach about the evils of "liberalism" and "liberals," it's worth noting that in many countries, including Japan, "liberal" refers to someone who is liberal both socially and economically...  meaning more free-market oriented from an economic point of view, but also for less governmental controls over social issues--kind of like very moderate libertarians.  Right wingers tend to favor more social controls but less economic controls, while left wingers tend to favor fewer social controls but more economic controls.  We Americans somehow managed to make "liberal" a synonym for "left wing," which it wasn't originally. 

Classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism.

Economically, classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views.  I won't say what the economic views modern liberals are aligned but only observe that they yhink they are capable of getting the trains to run on-time.

[BillA]

Thank goodness that the Beach Boys never used their music to preach their politics. 

While it is important for artists to take there art seriously it rarely works out well when they take themselves too seriously.  Outside of Marvin Gaye, I can't think anybody who benefited artisitcally by melding their politics with their art.

[mabewa]

I always figure that the BBs are the one right-leaning rock band that I really love.  Nothing against right-wing rock bands, it's just that they tend to suck.  But, when I think about it, they are indeed kind of all over the place, especially when you count Carl and Dennis.  Bruce seems to be pretty solidly conservative, Mike leans that way, Brian seems to have no politics at all, Al may be leaning a bit to the left these days, and Dave, who knows.  Count Carl and Dennis, and you've got a pretty wide spectrum. 

And, when you look at their actual lyric content, whenever they get around to writing anything like a protest song (which isn't often), the content tends to be more progressive, at least by American standards.  Stuff like "Trader" or "Looking at Tomorrow" comes to mind.  But most of the stuff that gets labeled left-wing is environmentalists.  And the idea that environmentalist = left wing is extremely American.  Here in Japan, the right wing governor of Osaka (Hashimoto) is a big no-nukes guy, while the right wing governor of Tokyo (Ishihara) is really into limiting greenhouse gases.  Just because Americans have somehow managed to make environmentalism into a left-right issue doesn't make it so. 

By the way, for those who constantly preach about the evils of "liberalism" and "liberals," it's worth noting that in many countries, including Japan, "liberal" refers to someone who is liberal both socially and economically...  meaning more free-market oriented from an economic point of view, but also for less governmental controls over social issues--kind of like very moderate libertarians.  Right wingers tend to favor more social controls but less economic controls, while left wingers tend to favor fewer social controls but more economic controls.  We Americans somehow managed to make "liberal" a synonym for "left wing," which it wasn't originally. 

Classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism.

Economically, classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views.  I won't say what the economic views modern liberals are aligned but only observe that they yhink they are capable of getting the trains to run on-time.

Economically yes, socially no. 

And I can observe that the Japanese "liberals" (which are usually considered more right-wing, especially economic issues) are extremely good at getting the trains to run on time. 

[mabewa]

Thank goodness that the Beach Boys never used their music to preach their politics. 

While it is important for artists to take there art seriously it rarely works out well when they take themselves too seriously.  Outside of Marvin Gaye, I can't think anybody who benefited artisitcally by melding their politics with their art.

I can think of many, including Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, The Byrds, The Clash, Woodie Guthrie, and Manu Chao.  Having said that, I don't think that the BBs music and overall message has ever lent itself well to political statements.  I like some of the songs when they have gotten overtly political, but others ('Don't Go Near the Water') are pretty awkward. 

[AndrewHickey]

To be honest, I think what this article does well and what a lot of people here aren't quite accounting for, is that art (like people) are political whether they want to be or not. Not announcing your politics in your art is not a non-political act - it's very political and it's even more political to not say anything when Americans were coming home in body bags from Vietnam on a daily basis.

That's true to an extent, of course (although it wasn't just Americans who were dying in Vietnam -- rather more Vietnamese people were being killed by Americans...), but it's not like the band actually said nothing about Vietnam -- Carl was very publicly a Conscientious Objector, and the rest of the band publicly supported him.

But I think it's a good thing that, apart from the Rieley period, the band didn't write explicitly about their political views. Some people can do that very, very well, but I have a feeling the Beach Boys would turn out to have been a bit like the old Johnny Cash song The One On The Right Was On The Left. They didn't need any more excuses to fight.

I also think, frankly, that none of the Beach Boys have ever made a single public remark about politics that's suggested they've ever thought about any of the issues in any depth. Even the ones who have publicly expressed opinions (on whatever side) don't sound like they actually know what they're talking about.

[kirt]

I was asked for my opinion on the subject by the author of this article while he was writing it. I told him that despite what many on the outside think they know... the Beach Boys (past and present) are a group of politically diverse individuals and to put the band into a Republican bag is a narrow view that overlooks a far more nuanced truth. Mike is not as solid of a Republican as Bruce...who is very solidly one. The others (past and present) range from right leaning to left leaning. Most of them prefer to keep their politics to themselves, which, as a music fan, I appreciate.

Exactly!

[mabewa]

To be honest, I think what this article does well and what a lot of people here aren't quite accounting for, is that art (like people) are political whether they want to be or not. Not announcing your politics in your art is not a non-political act - it's very political and it's even more political to not say anything when Americans were coming home in body bags from Vietnam on a daily basis.

That's true to an extent, of course (although it wasn't just Americans who were dying in Vietnam -- rather more Vietnamese people were being killed by Americans...), but it's not like the band actually said nothing about Vietnam -- Carl was very publicly a Conscientious Objector, and the rest of the band publicly supported him.

But I think it's a good thing that, apart from the Rieley period, the band didn't write explicitly about their political views. Some people can do that very, very well, but I have a feeling the Beach Boys would turn out to have been a bit like the old Johnny Cash song The One On The Right Was On The Left. They didn't need any more excuses to fight.

I also think, frankly, that none of the Beach Boys have ever made a single public remark about politics that's suggested they've ever thought about any of the issues in any depth. Even the ones who have publicly expressed opinions (on whatever side) don't sound like they actually know what they're talking about.

I agree especially with your last point.  They aren't political people, and I can't really see them writing coherent political songs.  Sure, Carl could have written about the war, Blondie and Ricky could have written about apartheid, maybe Al can say something about the environment, maybe Bruce might have something to say about the value of tax cuts on the rich   , but overall they don't strike me as very qualified or able spokespeople for causes. 

[UK_Surf]

Thank goodness that the Beach Boys never used their music to preach their politics. 

While it is important for artists to take there art seriously it rarely works out well when they take themselves too seriously.  Outside of Marvin Gaye, I can't think anybody who benefited artisitcally by melding their politics with their art.

Gil Scott Heron? The Clash? Public Enemy? Bob Dylan? Grandmaster Flash and the Furious Five? REM? The Dixie Chicks?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism.

How's that? Liberalism is an ideology -- how can it change?

Economically, classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views.  I won't say what the economic views modern liberals are aligned but only observe that they yhink they are capable of getting the trains to run on-time.

This is quite confused. If "classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views" which it is, to an extent, then American Republicans are "modern liberals." And, in reality, so are people who identify as liberals (i.e. Democrats) since their ideology is virtually identical with those in the Republican party with minor differences.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

That's true to an extent, of course (although it wasn't just Americans who were dying in Vietnam -- rather more Vietnamese people were being killed by Americans...),

100% agreed - I only mentioned the Americans coming home because I imagined that this fact would have reinforced the reality of the brutality occurring overseas. But you're quite right (and I've written about this elsewhere myself) that the casualties on the other side were far greater and the damage done to that country was devastating.

But I think it's a good thing that, apart from the Rieley period, the band didn't write explicitly about their political views. Some people can do that very, very well, but I have a feeling the Beach Boys would turn out to have been a bit like the old Johnny Cash song The One On The Right Was On The Left. They didn't need any more excuses to fight.

I suspect you're right, though Carry Me Home is a particularly good song, I think. I have no quarrums at all with the direction The Beach Boys went and I love their music from that period perhaps more than any other music. Nevertheless, the choice to not talk about these issues explicitly was a political choice.

[UK_Surf]

Billy Bragg, Credence Clearwater Revival, U2 (shudder), Professor Green, Lethal Bizzle,  The Byrds, Bob Marley...the Beach Boys (Student demo time, trader, 4th July, etc & so forth).

Which is to say that, done well, just as any subject, politics & aesthetics can go hand and hand. But it doesn't have to. Context and timing can be powerful factors in determining that success.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Outside of Marvin Gaye, I can't think anybody who benefited artisitcally by melding their politics with their art.

Along with the aforementioned Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, The Byrds, The Clash, Woodie Guthrie, Gil Scott Heron, Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash, REM, Dixie Chicks, Billy Bragg, CCR, U2, I would also add John Lennon and Stevie Wonder. EDIT: And how can I forget Randy Newman!

In fact, the entire tradition from which rock and roll music sprung was essentially as much a political tradition as a creative tradition.

[shelter]

Outside of Marvin Gaye, I can't think anybody who benefited artisitcally by melding their politics with their art.

Along with the aforementioned Bob Dylan, Bob Marley, The Byrds, The Clash, Woodie Guthrie, Gil Scott Heron, Public Enemy, Grandmaster Flash, REM, Dixie Chicks, Billy Bragg, CCR, U2, I would also add John Lennon and Stevie Wonder. EDIT: And how can I forget Randy Newman!

Rage Against The Machine, Sex Pistols, System Of A Down, Dead Kennedys...

[AndrewHickey]

Classic liberalism is different from modern liberalism.

How's that? Liberalism is an ideology -- how can it change?

Economically, classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views.  I won't say what the economic views modern liberals are aligned but only observe that they yhink they are capable of getting the trains to run on-time.

This is quite confused. If "classic liberalism is more aligned with Republican economic views" which it is, to an extent, then American Republicans are "modern liberals." And, in reality, so are people who identify as liberals (i.e. Democrats) since their ideology is virtually identical with those in the Republican party with minor differences.

The current American meaning of the word 'liberal' is different from the current European meaning of the word 'liberal' is different from the 19th century European meaning of the word.

And liberalism isn't a single ideology, but a grouping of many ideologies -- even just taking the European definition of the term (with which I am more familiar), any term that encompasses John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Hayek, John Maynard Keynes, William Beveridge, Cyril Smith, Karl Popper, the Liberator Collective and Isiah Berlin has to be a fairly broad, rather than narrow, term. All those people have shared principles, and shared ideological roots, but they were expressed pragmatically in *very* different ways.

And all ideologies change. There is, for example, no Christian church I know of whose beliefs now are identical to the beliefs of the same church a century ago -- their core values may be the same, but their emphasis, and small points of nuance, adapt to a changing world. The same goes for environmentalism (thirty years ago environmentalists would have called for an end to nuclear power, now most see it as a better option than fossil fuels), socialism, conservatism, libertarianism or whatever. They all start from a set of principles and beliefs, but the consequences of those principles change as the world changes  (or the ideology disappears altogether).