Weapon of Choice
Let’s face it– all anyone wants to talk about at the moment is politics. I was at the TJ Martell fund-raising dinner this week, which is always a big music industry event, and no one said a word about their hot new record, or big new signing, or even the annual holiday record industry lay-offs. All anyone could talk about at the table was the election. The next day, I met with a manager who confessed that the black circles under his eyes were not as a result of hanging out at a late-night gig, but rather staying up for the reruns of Keith Olbermann. Everyone’s a political junkie these days, and it doesn’t leave much room for music. It’s a little surprising. People appear to be somewhat more concerned with the future of the world and the survival of the global economy than they are about which record is topping the Hot 100. Where’s everyone’s sense of priorities? (joking…)
But just when you think that everyone has forgotten about music to focus on the big issues, you are reminded that music is right there, in the middle of the fight. After all, you can’t have a campaign rally without music. And that often becomes just one more issue for aspiring politicians to deal with.
It would appear that most political campaign managers have a minimal knowledge of popular music, and not a great deal of attention to lyrics. In the last few years, there have definitely been some questionable choices– Senator Bob Dole’s rewriting of “Soul Man” into “Dole Man” was surely a low point, as was Ronald Reagan’s use of “Born In The USA”, a song about the poor treatment of a Vietnam veteran. But this year has proven particularly difficult for the Republicans, who can’t seem to latch on to anything that works. So far, McCain and Palin
have tried:
“Right Now” — Van Halen. The matching of Van Halen and the evangelical movement seems an odd one, and apparently it felt uncomfortable to Van Halen as well, who asked that the song not be used.
“My Hero” — Foo Fighters. Not exactly a perfect demographic match.
“Running On Empty”– Jackson Browne. What were they possibly thinking? Do the people running the campaign know that there are about 700 lyric sites on the web, in case they want to check the words before they hit “play”?
“Barracuda”– Heart. This one was pulled out for Sarah Palin, as it appears there are very few songs about shooting moose. The Wilson sisters were not pleased.
“Still The One”– Orleans. Besides being about a hundred years old, this song has the disadvantage of being written by a Democratic New York Congressman (John Hall).
Not an easy year to find a GOP fight song. They now appear to be left with no choice but to endlessly recycle Hank Williams Jr., to rile up the crowd. The problem is that song just makes you want to watch football.
The Democrats have had a much easier time of it, as they usually do, given their wider support among most musicians and songwriters. Obama
seems to have stuck with “The Rising”, with an occasional Motown classic, or another reprise of Aretha’s “Think” (which isn’t actually a great lyric fit either, as the song isn’t actually extolling “freedom” as much as it sounds like it is). At least the Dem’s haven’t had to contend with angry songwriters objecting to the use of their song. In a side note though, I do have to ask– why do political crowds in both parties always clap on beats one and three, rather than two and four? It’s tragic to watch.
So what are the actual rules about using a song in a political campaign? Does the songwriter have to give permission? Is it possible for a songwriter or publisher to stop an objectionable use? Like most things legal and political, it’s a very gray area…
In fact, most campaign rallies use music under the guise of the “blanket performance license”. This is the license, issued by ASCAP, BMI, and SESAC to the halls in which the rallies occur, which allows someone holding an event in that location to use music, without a specific license from the publisher. It’s what allows hotels to play music in the lobby, and wedding bands to play songs in the hotel ballroom, and baseball teams to play “YMCA” at the stadium. BMI, ASCAP and SESAC then take those general fees, and pay their songwriter and publisher members. The use of music under the blanket license is compensated, but not individually licensed. Therefore, no one songwriter can refuse the use of his or her song. When you join ASCAP, BMI or SESAC, you agree to have your music included in the blanket license. That means your song could show up in a stadium, a hotel ballroom, or a business conference at that hotel, without your specific approval.
Of course, songwriters would argue (and do) that the use of a song at a campaign rally is very different than a song being played at a wedding. Because the music is customarily used at a prime moment, often the moment most likely to be televised, the song being used often appears to be an “endorsement” of the candidate. Because the songwriters (in some cases) and the artists singing the songs (in most cases) are public figures, it is somewhat unethical to imply that they are endorsing a candidate, if in fact they do not support that particular politician or cause. This is the basis upon which Bruce Springsteen objected to “Born In The USA”, Mellencamp to “R.O.C.K. In the USA” and Heart to “Barracuda”.
In most cases, politicians have backed down when faced with complaints from artists or songwriters. In all likelihood, they could probably continue to use the songs– there is little real legal recourse for songwriters and publishers, and the case would take a long time (and cost a lot of money) to resolve. Generally speaking, the threat of bad publicity is enough to make a campaign drop the song and move on. But few writers or publishers would be willing to go to court to stop this type of use.
The only real exception to that rule would be a use that involved a re-write of the lyric (like “Dole Man”), or the use of a song in a denigrating way (perhaps the “Running On Empty” use, which apparently was being used by the McCain campaign to ridicule Obama, might fall in this category). While there are legal protections for parodies, in most cases it is within the rights of a publisher to stop uses that either change a song significantly, or in some way damage a song and possibly reduce it’s long-term value as a copyright. Lyric or musical changes, a ridiculous performance, or putting a song in a context that changes its meaning could fall into the category of things that would require a publisher’s (and often a writer’s) approval.
Here’s an interesting question to which I’ve yet to figure out the answer:
Here’s another interesting one:
We know that politicians have a limited right to use any music they want (under the blanket license). But what about a songwriter’s use of the politician’s words? Check out one of my favorite new musical happenings:
If politicians can borrow songs, then why not the other way around? Mixing music and politics is an interesting, provocative, and sometimes dangerous business, and I think Clash of Civilizations does it as well as anyone out there at the moment. Check it out– its’ definitely more enlightening than hearing another round of tired campaign rhetoric and Hank Williams Jr.
And don’t forget to vote on Tuesday. This is a big one, with a lot at stake. Read up on the issues, put some good thought into it, and then get down to the polls.
