In his own elegant thoughtful manner, Greil Marcus compares and contrasts two country tunes and their artists. Brooks and Dunn drink a can of beer while a country gal burns down her house, and Greil uses this opportunity well.

Marcus discusses the notion of social commentary -- that's right, social commentary -- explaining how it is that bringing in ideas and story into music and subsequent discussions of it (that's the "social commentary" part) might actually have some meaning to a community and also make for music that is significant or relevant in some way other than mere commercial considerations (i.e., "turning a buck" or enhancing a famous name.)

"Social commentary" strikes me as a neutral term; although there are many critics of even the phrase "social commentary", just as there are those who want to avoid the whole idea altogether. I can't help but think that those people (and musicians are among them) might be responding that way because they are in some way concerned that the "commentary" might not reflect well on them.

Currently, the most vociferous critics of "social commentary" seem to fall out of the right-wing side of the political spectrum -- both those who just want to avoid the topic altogether as well as those massaged by think-tank propaganda systems who'd prefer only discussions of "universal" truths (or "just talk about the music") as well as those who'd prefer to omit any reminders of the troublesome specifics.

The popularity of this attitude might go on to influence the success of more musicians who genuinely have nothing to say and nothing to play who will likely go on to years of financially rewarding careers.

Which isn't to say there isn't a need for fun, but let's say if Hitler and his minions are careening about, why might people need a little fun to blow it all off for awhile? That's the "social history" or "social commentary" part.





  ¶ 11/25/2003 02:07:00 PM