Surely King Creosote is allowed to have his own opinion?
Anderson sang the praises of several right-leaning showbiz controversialists such as Mel Gibson and Eric Clapton – and TV presenter Neil Oliver - prompting critics to ask two central questions; whatever happened to the days when pop stars led the protest vote on behalf of the ordinary person? And in these days of cancel culture, is it clever to voice a political opinion that even Donald Trump supporters would stay clear of?
A generation or two ago, we delighted in hearing John Lennon sing Give Peace A Chance, because we all knew the Vietnam War was rancid. And who didn't support Jane Fonda when 'Hanoi Jane' was vilified by American Republicans. Over the years we've heard the liberal protest voice amplified by the likes of Dylan and Springsteen, the Dixie Chicks and Taylor Swift.
Read more on King Creosote
Those on the right have long wailed into the microphone too. James Cagney was a friend of Ronald Reagan who saw hippies as 'functionless creatures". Charlton Heston and John Wayne were also Good Old Boys who believed guns to be a force for good. And in more recent years the voice of conservatism has been carried loud and clear by Pink Floyd's Roger Waters, Tony Hadley, Lulu and Geri Halliwell.
Yet, in these days of polarised opinions and social media pile-ons, is it wise to be too vocal? Sir Elton John, in cautious voice, admits he's left leaning. 'If I was to say what I am, I'd be a Labour man. And in America I'd definitely be a Democrat; I'd never be a Republican. But I just want people to vote for things that are just, things that are important to people; the right to choose, the right to be who you are, and not let anybody else tell you who to be.'
PR guru Mark Borkowski supports the argument for artists putting their own message out there – if the cause is right. 'Once upon a time music was synonymous with political dissent. I knew of Peter Paul and Mary primarily through Ed 'Stewpot' Stewart and Puff the Magic Dragon: but for an entire coffee house generation these guys owed their cred as much to their political attitudes and moral and ethical outlook as to their music.'
He adds; 'Maybe the rock icons of this age are toothless tigers, a bunch of easy-living no-goods whose rage is all front, a force for nothing bar their own inflated incomes and egos. In which case, forget it, dismiss the Dylans, Seegers, Geldofs, Bonos and other humanitarian rock crusaders as unfortunate blips in musical history, and let's get on with selling the T-shirts.'
King Creosote referred to Neil Oliver as 'one of the best guys' (Image: free) Billy Bragg or Paul Weller will sing out their lefty stance from the rooftops. As will Alice Cooper on the right. However, while Bruce Springsteen may be America's blue-collar representative on stage, the Boss suggests caution when it comes to proselytizing. 'The more you do it, your two cents becomes one cent and then no cents whatsoever,' he maintains. 'So, I think your credibility and your impact lessens the more you do it. That's why I've been hesitant to overplay my hand in that area, and I generally come to service when I feel it's kind of necessary and it might help a little bit."
Is that what it's about? Measuring mood - and yet still being true to your convictions? Lulu didn't seem to measure the mood in Scotland when the former tenement baby revealed herself a Thatcherite. However, the singer from Dennistoun's record sales didn't nosedive as a result. And actor Vince Vaughn's career didn't suffer a nosebleed, in spite of becoming a Trumpeteer in recent years.
Yet, supporting a mainstream political party is one thing, but when you align yourself with extreme thought – a clear example being Mel Gibson's apology for anti-Semitic ranting during his arrest for drink-driving – or tie into conspiracy theories - then your career could be headed for the toilet. PR professional James Nickerson argues that if artists feel strongly about being political, they need to be aware of the potential fallout. 'Artists really have to be sure enough in their belief that if they lose some of their fan base, they will be okay with that.'
That doesn't seem to be the case with The Smiths former frontman Morrissey, who once wore a For Britain badge, (a right-wing political party Nigel Farage believed to be made up of 'Nazis and racists'), declared reggae to be 'the most racist music in the world' and defended Harvey Weinstein. The singer later admitted to fans in the US; "As you know, nobody will release my music anymore.'
John Wayne was a well-known right-winger (Image: free) So, it's fine to air views, if it's to demand civil rights, or demand the end to wars or battle the gun lobby. But when you cross the line, as actor Laurence Fox seems to have done when making statements such as 'The wokeists are fundamentally a racist bunch' then there's a real chance you can find yourself looking for a new line of work.
Yet, we don't want our artists' mouths to be taped up. I once interviewed the icon that is Smokey Robinson and Smokey didn't want to talk about early Motown days or offer thoughts on romancing Diana Ross. All he wanted to talk about for two long hours was Jesus and how God found him. And it was apparent that God hadn't given Robinson the gift of self-awareness.
But at least the interview ended with an understanding of the man. And doesn't that signal that even if we don't agree with the voices of the likes of King Creosote it's better to know what a performer actually thinks? What we've also got to consider is that most people who complain about an artist's expression of their views are just upset because they don't agree with their own.
So, let's hear the voices from the ends of the spectrum.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
AP PHOTOS: Portugal beats Spain to win the Nations League
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging. At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story. The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it. Your support makes all the difference.
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Startling sum North missed out on for transport in 'decade of deceit'
Analysis by think-tank the IPPR found the North of England would have had an extra £140billion in transport cash if it was treated the same as London under the Tories The North of England would have had an extra £140billion of transport cash if it was treated the same as London under the Tories, damning figures show. New analysis reveals the Government spent £1,183 per person in the capital between 2010 and 2023 - compared to just £486 in the north. And it was even worse in the Midlands, where the figure was £455. Marcus Johns, senior research fellow at think-tank IPPR North - which crunched the numbers - said: 'Today's figures are concrete proof that promises made to the North over the last decade were hollow. It was a decade of deceit. "We are 124 years on from the end of Queen Victoria's reign – yet the North is still running on infrastructure built during her reign – while our transport chasm widens. This isn't London bashing - Londoners absolutely deserve investment. "But £1,182 per person for London and £486 for northerners? The numbers don't lie – this isn't right." The data shows £83billion of Government cash was spent on transport projects in the north since 1999/2000. The region with the lowest amount of investment over the period was the East Midlands with just £355 spent per person. Last week Chancellor Rachel Reeves announced a £15.6 billion package for mayoral authorities to use on public transport projects across the North and Midlands. This cash is expected to include funding to extend the metros in Tyne and Wear, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands. There will also be a renewed tram network in South Yorkshire and a new mass transit system in West Yorkshire. Labour's Local Transport Minister Simon Lightwood said: 'This report lays bare the way in which successive Conservative governments have short-changed areas outside of London and the south east, denying millions of people access to jobs, education and opportunity. ' Labour promised we would bring growth to every part of the country and we've put our money where our mouth is. As part of our Plan for Change we've announced more than £15 billion for local transport in England's city regions, delivering the biggest ever investment in buses, trams and local rail."
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
Disability cut impact could be even worse than expected warns food bank charity
Research commissioned by food bank charity Trussell found that 340,000 people in disabled households will be pushed into severe hardship by benefit changes being brought in by the Government Tens of thousands more people will be pushed into poverty by the Government's welfare cuts than previously feared, a major foodbank charity has warned. Trussell has claimed that 340,000 people in disabled households will be forced into severe hardship by the end of the decade. Keir Starmer faces a rebellion from his own party over a string of measures, including cutting access to the personal independence payment (PIP) and sickness-related elements of Universal Credit. The Government's assessment found 250,000 people, including 50,000 children, will fall into relative poverty in England, Scotland and Wales after housing costs are taken into account. But Trussell's analysis said the true picture is even worse, with 440,000 likely to need a food bank - although an increase in the basic rate of Universal Credit will move around 95,000 people out of severe hardship. Helen Barnard, director of policy at Trussell, said: 'This UK government was elected on a promise of change, and with a commitment to end the need for food banks. If the government goes ahead with these ill-considered and cruel cuts to social security, this promise will not be kept – and instead, they will risk leaving behind a legacy of rising poverty and hunger. "Tackling fiscal challenges should not be done at the expense of people already facing hunger and hardship. These cuts will force 440,000 people in disabled households into severe hardship and leave them at risk of needing a food bank. "We urge the government not to continue down this damaging path." The PM faces fierce opposition from Labour backbenchers, dozens of who say the proposals - expected to save £5billion a year - are "impossible to support". Charity the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has backed Trussell's calls for the Government to rethink the disability benefit cuts. It said: "This analysis shows they are likely to create more deep poverty and hardship than even the bleak forecast from the Government's own limited assessments." Trussell has also demanded the Government brings forward the planned increase to the basic rate of Universal Credit to April 2026, instead of waiting until April 2029. A Government spokesperson said: "This Government is determined to change people's lives for the better, helping them out of poverty and tackling the unacceptable rise in food bank dependence in recent years. "We will never compromise on protecting people who need our support, and our reforms will mean the social security system will always be there for those who will never be able to work, and that their income is protected."
