DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: KevShmev on June 30, 2022, 07:20:25 AM
-
I saw this:
https://news.yahoo.com/halsey-addresses-fans-left-gig-064550763.html?fr=sycsrp_catchall
Halsey is certainly not the first person to be vocal about a social or political issue, even in the modern era, but to be that vocal about fans who may not have agreed with her is a good way to alienate a portion of your fanbase, no? I get why she and others are speaking out, and I am generally in agreement with them, but I hope she and others don't play the "woah is me" card if they see concert sales and streams take a hit as a result. Halsey has always seemed pretty blunt, so I am not surprised she took the "if you do not agree with me, get the hell out" stance, but I just hope she is prepared for the backlash.
-
I'm not a huge fan of entertainers (music, acting etc) or athletes spouting off their stances on anything, whether I agree with them or not. I am very much in the 'shut up and just act or play' camp.....not saying I'm right in that belief but that's where I fall.
-
I'm 100% fine with artists sharing their opinions, beliefs, whatever, as long as they're cool with fans reacting to it.
I support Halsey doing what she did, I support Chris Pratt praising god every 10 minutes, I support Ted Nugent telling everyone that democrats are satan. Whatever they want, they're humans and have the right to say whatever they want. And I can stop supporting whomever I want.
-
I'm not a huge fan of entertainers (music, acting etc) or athletes spouting off their stances on anything, whether I agree with them or not. I am very much in the 'shut up and just act or play' camp.....not saying I'm right in that belief but that's where I fall.
For me, it's about where they do it. If an athlete wants to talk about a topic on a podcast they host, or share something on Twitter, that's whatever as far as I'm concerned. I don't like when the sports themselves and interviews that follow are used at platforms.
-
“Downside of doing outdoor venues: no door to hit them on the way out.” :lol
I'm with Adami on this. Performers have a right to their opinions. I always got a kick out of people who storm out of Roger Waters concerts, and there are always a few. You ever actually listen to his songs, FFS?
-
I have no qualms with anyone sharing an opinion on anything.
That said, I prefer to keep my enterainment an my politics separate, especially as I get older.
I mean, Sweaty Teddy can go on and on all he wants about 'evil liberal this' and 'evil liberal that,' and I'm still gonna crank "Stranglehold" when I hear it on the radio, but no way am I paying money to see him. His choice to be outspoken, and my choice to avoid his shows.
Obviously, I give more of a pass who I feel more aligned with poltically, but even then, I find that allowing your views to infect your music immediately dates it.
I love Pearl Jam, but all of their anit-Bush rants from the early 2000's feel, well, a bit dated at this point.
That said, I get that there is a long tradition of musicians using their voice to (attempt to) inspire change, and I have the utmost repsect for the Neil Youngs of the world.
Perhaps, it's more that I just find our current situation so emotionally overwhelming I turn to music as a refuge from the divisiveness.
Take the KISS thread, for example. There's a ton of conversation going on over there that has nothing to do with abortion or Pelosi or anything that's politically relevant. I'm sure Gene and Paul have opinions on all this mess, but I sincerely doubt their going to take the time to divulge them during or after a concernt.
-
I'm with Adami on this. Performers have a right to their opinions. I always got a kick out of people who storm out of Roger Waters concerts, and there are always a few. You ever actually listen to his songs, FFS?
It's not that I don't believe that they don't have the rights to their opinions.....there's just a way to do it without being a condescending, elitist asshole. NONE of those people are grounded in reality. Even if they came up from nothing by the time they're at the point where their success allows them that platform their version of reality is far from what the reality is for 99% of the people living in this world.
My example would be Tom Hanks vs Alec Baldwin. Both incredibly talented actors. Both extremely liberal....yet, I only still watch Tom Hanks movies/shows and will immediately turn off anything Baldwin touches. And it's all due to his method of delivery of what he believes. I know Hanks stance on things because he does talk about them....but in a respectful way that doesn't alienate his fanbase. Baldwin is a no good piece of :censored that thinks anyone who doesn't believe the way he does should go to hell....his eventual landing spot.
-
Artists have always been controversial. This isn't limited to music.
As a consumer, my choice is to decide if I want to spend money on that art. The artist has every right to their platform and their free speech. If it loses fans, then they might make different choices and they might not. That is up to them.
Halsey is going to be more than fine. She is gaining far more fans than losing them at this point. And from the photos and clips of her shows, I don't think she has anything to worry about.
-
I guess ultimately I'm indifferent; they're entitled to their opinions, and in so many cases, those opinions fuel their art. Would John Lennon be "John Lennon" without things like Revolution, or Give Peace A Chance? Neil Young and "Ohio"?
Having said that, I saw REM the week that George Bush was re-elected back in 2004, and Michael Stipe made an "impassioned" speech that was met with a smattering of boos and uncomfortable silence (and I'm in a blue state!). I saw Bruce Springsteen get booed for making a crack at Dick Cheney's expense here in Hartford. When it starts to impact the entertainment, I sort of start to bristle.
Then there's the criticism that Phil Collins took the brunt of; it's easy to talk about giving money and sharing the wealth when you're worth $250 million. I saw an interview with Sheryl Crow with Dan Rather and she's sitting in her $1M barn studio with literally 15 or 20 high-end guitars hanging on the wall preaching about being a victim.
For me it boils down to the same things as it does here in P/R. If you want to have a reasoned conversation about issues, with an open mind I'm all for artists giving a new spin on things and putting issues out there. Bruce does that well. So do David Gilmour, Genesis, and Peter Gabriel. If you're just interested in your point of view and anyone that disagrees is a unintelligent, a bigot or immoral, then I'm usually out. I never was a fan of Radiohead, but "Hail To The Thief" basically sealed the deal that they won't get a dollar of my money, nor a minute of my listening time ever again. That wasn't reasoned political discourse; that was the typical snarky, "I'm right, I'm moral, you're a stupid, inept bigot" approach to debate that I can't stand. The fact that Thom Yorke is seemingly oblivious to the rampant irony of "There There" ("Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there") just shows a contempt that I can't get past.
-
One thing I hadn't considered is doing this at a concert.
Like if Mel Gibon says "You look like a f---cking pig in heat and if you get raped by a pack of n---ers it will be your fault" (real quote), then I can decide moving forward whether or not I want to put money toward one of his endeavors. (Luckily his movies in the last two decades have been easy to pass on)
But if I go to a concert of someone, I've already payed that money. So I don't get to decide that I'm not paying for the concert after they started saying some stuff that really bothers me. There's no refund, you know? Sure, you can decide not to spend MORE money, but I still lost out on however many hundreds.
No actual solution to that, since I still support whomever saying whatever, but it's an element to the problem.
-
One thing I hadn't considered is doing this at a concert.
Like if Mel Gibon says "You look like a f---cking pig in heat and if you get raped by a pack of n---ers it will be your fault" (real quote), then I can decided moving forward whether or not I want to put money toward one of his endeavors.
But if I go to a concert of someone, I've already payed that money. So I don't get to decide that I'm not paying for the concert after they started saying some stuff that really bothers me. There's no refund, you know? Sure, you can decide not to spend MORE money, but I still lost out on however many hundreds.
No actual solution to that, since I still support whomever saying whatever, but it's an element to the problem.
I get the distinction you are making here. But the majority of the time, the artist is a known entity, you know? Halsey has never been shy about her views. Neither has Mel Gibson or Tom Cruise or Neil Young or Pearl Jam or Roger Waters or Ted Nugent.
As consumers it is always wise to be aware of what you are spending your money on. In other words, doing your homework is probably a good idea before taking the test.
-
That's a fair point.
I guess then my concern would apply if I went to see Dream Theater and James or John just started ranting about infanticide finally being punished in God's country or something.
-
I don't have an issue with it as long as it doesn't take away from the entertainment.
I like how David Draiman from Disturbed does it. He usually has his "Brothers and sisters" speech, but it's more about unity and tolerance rather than "I disagree with XYZ".
-
As consumers it is always wise to be aware of what you are spending your money on. In other words, doing your homework is probably a good idea before taking the test.
I agree with you 100% here; in the internet age, there's literally no excuse for not knowing. But El Barto is right; there's always going to be someone that storms out of a Roger Waters show saying "WTF". It's hard not to laugh at those people.
-
That article is relying on a random tweet? How many people actually left? I'd like to see a video of droves of people walking out of a concert for me to think someone has maybe gone too far.
Out of the 6 bands I saw last weekend, I think at least half of them made a public statement against the SCOTUS ruling. I didn't hear a single boo although I'm sure many in the crowd didn't agree.
I think it's only an issue when it becomes too much. It's just so common for artists to speak out these days that it doesn't bother me as long as it doesn't take over their identity or have an impact on the music or performance.
-
Anyone here actually pick their artists based on their politics? Maybe it's the same now, though I'm out of touch, but there was a very strong undercurrent back in the late 80's and early 90's where it seemed like a number of bands traded on the political aspect of their footprint. The REM's, the U2's, the Sting/Polices', the Talking Heads', the Peter Gabriel's... it never really bothered me much because I was in it for the guitars, mainly, and even then, I only listened to that music which I liked (I hated Sting's first couple solo records, I still despise Talking Heads) but it was fairly evident that there was a sort of synergy of fan-dom around those bands based on their political leanings.
-
Anyone here actually pick their artists based on their politics? Maybe it's the same now, though I'm out of touch, but there was a very strong undercurrent back in the late 80's and early 90's where it seemed like a number of bands traded on the political aspect of their footprint. The REM's, the U2's, the Sting/Polices', the Talking Heads', the Peter Gabriel's... it never really bothered me much because I was in it for the guitars, mainly, and even then, I only listened to that music which I liked (I hated Sting's first couple solo records, I still despise Talking Heads) but it was fairly evident that there was a sort of synergy of fan-dom around those bands.
I think the closest I got is Orphaned Land.
I'm not nearly into American politics, but Israeli stuff still strikes a deep chord for me. So if they were more zionistic or nationalist, I'd have not listened to them. But since they're all about equality and togetherness and stuff, they got my attention. Luckily I love the music too.
-
I do not seek out artists BECAUSE of their political leanings/opinions but I will avoid artists because of them.
And this is not always easy, TBH. At one point I was a huge Bill Cosby fan, loved his comedy and have gone to several of his shows back in the 80s. I could never in good conscience direct my money in any way toward him now.
-
I understand reason like Sinead O'Connor in her SNL performance. But we have many who are paid to voice, as polical garbage. Attacking other performers because they do not agree, is just another bad issue. Most of these loud mouths are doing it also to keep a fan base, by being in the public eye. There is a difference between being a paid spokesperson or to keep the cameras on you, just look at their demeanor and who they follow. Bruce Springstien, Green Day, The Who, and many other's in various forms of entertainment, who are not just voicing opinion. John Lennon, did not follow, he created... Cindy Lauper was just one of many voices to be heard, and did not care about being seen. I have my voice, and don't care who listens, hopefully it is used to think a wee bit more about what you see and hear.
-
I would say Kid Rock is kind of cringe being a hardcore Trumper. I'd be lying if it wasn't making me rethink going to see him this summer (I really just want to see Foreigner open, but I've never seen Kid Rock so thinking I should stick around for his set too).
-
I do not seek out artists BECAUSE of their political leanings/opinions but I will avoid artists because of them.
And this is not always easy, TBH. At one point I was a huge Bill Cosby fan, loved his comedy and have gone to several of his shows back in the 80s. I could never in good conscience direct my money in any way toward him now.
That's another good distinction to consider, though. Not arguing with you, just clarifying how I think: I don't lump Bill Cosby in with "politics". According to the Court(s), he isn't just disagreeing with me ideologically, he actually committed a felonious crime. I sometimes feel bad (not the right word, exactly) if I bristle at an artist's politics - Pearl Jam is an example; I love the band, but Ed's sanctimony is hard, sometimes, to tolerate and yet, I feel I should for all the reasons stated here - but I don't lose a moments sleep in keeping my money from a man that is a convicted rapist.
-
I understand reason like Sinead O'Connor in her SNL performance. But we have many who are paid to voice, as polical garbage. Attacking other performers because they do not agree, is just another bad issue. Most of these loud mouths are doing it also to keep a fan base, by being in the public eye. There is a difference between being a paid spokesperson or to keep the cameras on you, just look at their demeanor and who they follow. Bruce Springstien, Green Day, The Who, and many other's in various forms of entertainment, who are not just voicing opinion. John Lennon, did not follow, he created... Cindy Lauper was just one of many voices to be heard, and did not care about being seen. I have my voice, and don't care who listens, hopefully it is used to think a wee bit more about what you see and hear.
See, Green Day - Billie Joe Armstrong in particular - is morphing for me. Sure, we all get our opinons, but his are veering from constructive debate/criticism/argument to just... whatever. "I don't want to be an American idiot" is brusk and in your face, but it's a statement that can be discussed. "Fuck America, man!" doesn't bring much to the table, IMO, and while it's his right, I think there's a cogent argument to be made that that's as much virtue signaling as anything else.
-
I do not seek out artists BECAUSE of their political leanings/opinions but I will avoid artists because of them.
And this is not always easy, TBH. At one point I was a huge Bill Cosby fan, loved his comedy and have gone to several of his shows back in the 80s. I could never in good conscience direct my money in any way toward him now.
That's another good distinction to consider, though. Not arguing with you, just clarifying how I think: I don't lump Bill Cosby in with "politics". According to the Court(s), he isn't just disagreeing with me ideologically, he actually committed a felonious crime. I sometimes feel bad (not the right word, exactly) if I bristle at an artist's politics - Pearl Jam is an example; I love the band, but Ed's sanctimony is hard, sometimes, to tolerate and yet, I feel I should for all the reasons stated here - but I don't lose a moments sleep in keeping my money from a man that is a convicted rapist.
Many do not remember this but Cosby actually was known for making some controversial statements socio-politically back in his hey-day. I didn't agree with some of them, but before he was discovered to be a rapist, I didn't let those factor into my enjoyment of his craft.
I'm sure there are a lot of people who still love OJ. He was not convicted criminally and yet, I wouldn't spit on him if he were on fire and fully believe he is guilty of those crimes.
-
Back in the day, I think most didn't want their politics in their music and the examples here remind me of past decades. Now, I think fans dislike because it doesn't match their view. The internet has everything to do with that.
-
Back in the day, I think most didn't want their politics in their music and the examples here remind me of past decades. Now, I think fans dislike because it doesn't match their view. The internet has everything to do with that.
It could just be a matter of oversaturation. Bad news and political discussion is almost impossible to avoid these days. It's everywhere you turn. If I'm spending $100 on a concert ticket, it's to get a break from that stuff. I just want to go do something fun and hear music. Instead, it's just more politics.
I think the political side of things was a draw for many groups, wasn't it? Wasn't that basically the whole point of punk rock?
-
Dear Ted Nugent.
STFU
Piss off,
Coz
-
I generally do not have a problem with celebs and artists speaking their mind, but it can come with a price if you piss off too many fans/customers. I remember the famous Michael Jordan quote: "Republicans buy sneakers, too." He was smart and stayed out of it, although that was before social media and was a very different time.
Where I get frustrated is when fans (see: the Twitter mob) get pissy with a favorite artist for NOT saying something, as if they HAVE to get involved and say something. If some want to stay far away from the abortion topic, or any other for that matter, I respect their right to keep quiet and focus on just their art when speaking publicly.
As for guys like Cosby or Kevin Spacey or Mel Gibson, I would have a hard time enjoying anything new they do, but the revelations about each didn't change my enjoyment of their past work. I can still watch Braveheart, any of the Lethal Weapons, The Usual Suspects or American Beauty, and enjoy the heck out of all of them.
-
Anyone here actually pick their artists based on their politics? Maybe it's the same now, though I'm out of touch, but there was a very strong undercurrent back in the late 80's and early 90's where it seemed like a number of bands traded on the political aspect of their footprint. The REM's, the U2's, the Sting/Polices', the Talking Heads', the Peter Gabriel's... it never really bothered me much because I was in it for the guitars, mainly, and even then, I only listened to that music which I liked (I hated Sting's first couple solo records, I still despise Talking Heads) but it was fairly evident that there was a sort of synergy of fan-dom around those bands based on their political leanings.
Sure... but I don't love these kind of tirades either, because what I am looking for from artists is not the "quick reaction" that you can just get from anyone on twitter. I am looking for someone who is stepping back and doing the true cultural work of filtering that anger (or whatever it may be) into art. Some artists have it both ways - like Bruce railing against Cheney, or Taylor laying into the Supreme Court on Twitter ;). But then there are people like Dylan, who've hardly commented on politics in the last 20 years, and yet you could not listen to his latest album without it leaving many reflections on the current social and political environment swirling in your head.
-
I am about the most apolitical person I know.
I have opinions about Roe, but they're based in principles of constitutional law and have nothing to do with so-called "reproductive rights."
That said, if I'm going to a concert, it is not because I want to listen to a person who is likely uneducated and ill-informed spout off about a political or social issue. If I go to a concert and that happen, I'm likely to sit down and/or roll my eyes. I'm not likely to walk out because I probably want to hear the songs I paid to hear, and walking out would deny me that. It might, however, cause me not to pay for tickets to future concerts.
I do not seek out artists BECAUSE of their political leanings/opinions but I will avoid artists because of them.
I think this is true for me as well (the first part absolutely is), although I can't think of anyone I've avoided for this reason. That said, I probably mean it differently than you. I would avoid artists for being overly vocal and outspoken about any political opinion (not just about opinions that disagree with my own).
-
Said it before, I don't care what an artist's personal opinion (or look) is as it has no effect on my enjoyment of their craft.
The Nuge is a raving lunatic, but I still enjoy his music. Tom Cruise is a Scientologist whack-job but I still enjoy several of his movies. Jon Schaeffer is, well you know, and I still listen to Iced Earth and Demons & Wizards.
One of the funnier things to come out recently was Tom Morello and RATM getting flack for being political (?!??!?!?). No amount of eye-rolls was enough and the endless amount of people asking enraged fans, 'Have you listened to the lyrics?'. :lol
-
I believe artist have a right to have and spout any opinions they want (as long as they don't insight immediate violence and such). If I find them annoying, then ah well. That's on me, and I'll just move on and likely ignore it.
-
I think the only popular rock musician whose politics, but especially how they talk about them, that would turn me off is Ted Nugent, but luckily I don't like his music anyway, so I no dilemma for me. :xbones
-
I believe artist have a right to have and spout any opinions they want (as long as they don't insight immediate violence and such). If I find them annoying, then ah well. That's on me, and I'll just move on and likely ignore it.
This. Artists have no obligation to appease their fans, and I am not obligated to continue buying their stuff.
-
Loved when a trumpster told Tom Morello he liked RATM before they got all political :rollin
Artists can do whatever they want, and I will decide whether to give them further air or not.
-
That said, if I'm going to a concert, it is not because I want to listen to a person who is likely uneducated and ill-informed spout off about a political or social issue. If I go to a concert and that happen, I'm likely to sit down and/or roll my eyes. I'm not likely to walk out because I probably want to hear the songs I paid to hear, and walking out would deny me that. It might, however, cause me not to pay for tickets to future concerts.
Same here. I am not a big fan of too much chatter in general in between songs. Some is fine, but not too much. Some like Akerfeldt's banter at Opeth concerts, but after about 30 seconds, it is like, "Okay, shut it and play a song." Any artist pontificating for minutes about politics or anything in that arena would probably get on my nerves and make me not want to go again, but if it is part of the music (lyrics) and show (videos and whatnot), I am fine with it, even if I disagree with the message. Heck, I have gone to three Morsefests now, and that is about the only thing nowadays that would get me to a church. :lol
-
I never was a fan of Radiohead, but "Hail To The Thief" basically sealed the deal that they won't get a dollar of my money, nor a minute of my listening time ever again. That wasn't reasoned political discourse; that was the typical snarky, "I'm right, I'm moral, you're a stupid, inept bigot" approach to debate that I can't stand. The fact that Thom Yorke is seemingly oblivious to the rampant irony of "There There" ("Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there") just shows a contempt that I can't get past.
I've read this paragraph a couple of times now and I don't get what you're saying. I wasn't around when the album got released (well, I was a child) so I discovered it years later. I enjoy Hail to the Thief and a few years ago would have named Radiohead among my favourite groups. I enjoy their songs, though I never really paid too much attention to (the meaning of) their lyrics, even though I know they're a huge part of their music. I feel like Radiohead has always had deeper messages in their songs, below the surface of the words. I also get that not everyone likes them, but I think that's mostly due to the 'artsy superiority' they elicit (for lack of a better term, I'm tired, can't think properly) or because of Thom Yorke's voice. Never have I heard of someone being actively turned off by the words themselves.
-
I don't have an issue with it as long as it doesn't take away from the entertainment.
I like how David Draiman from Disturbed does it. He usually has his "Brothers and sisters" speech, but it's more about unity and tolerance rather than "I disagree with XYZ".
and then he goes on social media
-
Where I get frustrated is when fans (see: the Twitter mob) get pissy with a favorite artist for NOT saying something, as if they HAVE to get involved and say something. If some want to stay far away from the abortion topic, or any other for that matter, I respect their right to keep quiet and focus on just their art when speaking publicly.
Agreed, Sir. I see this to a much lesser extent in video game reviews where the reviewer criticizes a game for having political stuff in the story but not going far enough. I'd rather that shit be kept out of games and music concerts because I have to listen to it all day at work, and see it on the fucking TV in the break room where Fox News, News Max, and MSNBC are on almost 24 hours a fucking day. But all in all I agree with the quote below.
Artists can do whatever they want, and I will decide whether to give them further air or not.
-
I don't have an issue with it as long as it doesn't take away from the entertainment.
I like how David Draiman from Disturbed does it. He usually has his "Brothers and sisters" speech, but it's more about unity and tolerance rather than "I disagree with XYZ".
and then he goes on social media
I made a comment already about him in this thread. He just seems to always pick the daily topic of divide to comment about. A lot of the time it is very much about unity and tolerance, but it's like he just constantly wants to poke the monster and it comes off as very annoying to me. Instead of maybe just staying out of it instead of provoking everyone to argue.
-
Who is Halsey? The WWII Admiral?
I don't know what I find more amazing, that celebrities think people care how they feel about topical issues, or that people actually do care how they feel about topical issues. I have never once in my life cared about what a celebrity thought about anything.
-
Agreed, Sir. I see this to a much lesser extent in video game reviews where the reviewer criticizes a game for having political stuff in the story but not going far enough. I'd rather that shit be kept out of games and music concerts because I have to listen to it all day at work, and see it on the fucking TV in the break room where Fox News, News Max, and MSNBC are on almost 24 hours a fucking day.
Agreed. Granted, this stuff has always been a part of popular music (see: Dylan, the late 60s), so it is just part of the overall package with some artists, but, speaking for just me and myself, I go to concerts to have a great time and listen to music, not to be lectured at by the artist, again, talking pontificating to the crowd in between songs, not the song themselves. I have long been a big fan of Bono's "fuck the revolution" speech in Sunday Bloody Sunday in the Rattle and Hum film, as that became part of the song rather than "listen to me talk for five minutes before we start playing tunes again," but if some hate it, I totally get it.
-
I never was a fan of Radiohead, but "Hail To The Thief" basically sealed the deal that they won't get a dollar of my money, nor a minute of my listening time ever again. That wasn't reasoned political discourse; that was the typical snarky, "I'm right, I'm moral, you're a stupid, inept bigot" approach to debate that I can't stand. The fact that Thom Yorke is seemingly oblivious to the rampant irony of "There There" ("Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there") just shows a contempt that I can't get past.
I've read this paragraph a couple of times now and I don't get what you're saying. I wasn't around when the album got released (well, I was a child) so I discovered it years later. I enjoy Hail to the Thief and a few years ago would have named Radiohead among my favourite groups. I enjoy their songs, though I never really paid too much attention to (the meaning of) their lyrics, even though I know they're a huge part of their music. I feel like Radiohead has always had deeper messages in their songs, below the surface of the words. I also get that not everyone likes them, but I think that's mostly due to the 'artsy superiority' they elicit (for lack of a better term, I'm tired, can't think properly) or because of Thom Yorke's voice. Never have I heard of someone being actively turned off by the words themselves.
Yeah I also think this is kind of a weird take. Like where Radiohead were going or not, "Hail to the Thief" is art. Yorke has said that the album was inspired by the Orwellian atmosphere they were feeling from both the UK and the US at the time of the War in Iraq. It's neither a snarky quip on twitter nor a "reasoned attempt at political discourse". It's meant to invoke a certain doomer mentality, and cynicism/fear of the world and the future. To feel victimized by it is to misread it or else feel so uncomfortable with the artistic expression of pessimism that it almost seems an objection to art itself.
-
I am on board with any and all praise of Hail to the Thief. :hat
-
I think the only popular rock musician whose politics, but especially how they talk about them, that would turn me off is Ted Nugent, but luckily I don't like his music anyway, so I no dilemma for me. :xbones
Funny enough, I met a guy last night who was Nugent's guitar tech for about 12 years. He also worked for Rick Nielson (Cheap Trick) and Ace Frehley. Said Nugent was the nicest guy he worked with. Just thought that was an interesting coincidence (see the Kiss thread for more).