Springsteen Interview on "Vote for Change" Tour

[Sherry Darling]

http://www.backstreets.com/news.html


God I love him!


BRUUUUUUUUUCCC!!

SD

 

[BVS]

Great interview...

Interesting tidbit about his song being used, since we've had so much debate over this same exact thing lately.

 

[STING2]

Not a surprise, I'm sure Springsteen has voted Democratic in every election that he has voted in. I've recalled him making statements of support to Democratic Presidential candidates in the past.

 

[achtung_zoo]

i'd like to go to one of those shows, especially bc hes going to be in philly...but since hes not the only one there and since its the "Vote for a Change Tour" and I like Bush...I think I'll wait untill his next tour.

 

[nurse chrissi]

If you register at moveon.org. you get a chance at a presale for the tickets which go on sale to the public on August 21
STL is getting Pearl Jam/Death cab for cutie/Dixie Chicks/James Taylor - all good but no Springsteen

 

[oliveu2cm]

He's going to be on Nightline tonight at 11:35 EST.

(emphasis mine in the below article)-

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Chords for Change
By BRUCE SPRINGSTEEN

Published: August 5, 2004

A nation's artists and musicians have a particular place in its social
and political life. Over the years I've tried to think long and hard
about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and
position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried.
I've tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our
failures.

These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we
stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always
stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been
partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane
foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This
year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this
election out.

Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that
the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise
and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so
difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves
during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does
the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within
grasp yet forever out of reach?

I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do
believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and
working their way toward honest solutions. They understand that we need
an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity,
openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith.

People have different notions of these values, and they live them out in
different ways. I've tried to sing about some of them in my songs. But I
have my own ideas about what they mean, too. That is why I plan to join
with many fellow artists, including the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam,
R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, Jurassic 5, James Taylor and Jackson Browne,
in touring the country this October. We will be performing under the
umbrella of a new group called Vote for Change. Our goal is to change
the direction of the government and change the current administration
come November.

Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity.
I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to
enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would
bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we
dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of
our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We
ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services
like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent
(corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division
of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another
and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."

It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities -
respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that
we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as
individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far
from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry
in our hearts is waiting.


Bruce Springsteen is a writer and performer.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

OMG, I cannot say how condescending and insulting it is, not to mention pretentious, for these artists to believe that their concerts are going to change someone's mind politically. If I like their music, fine, I don't have to agree with their politics. I won't shove mine in their faces and they needn't preach to me.

 

[Sherry Darling]

BP, how is it any more pretentious than all of us posting our ideas and opinions here (like you just did), hoping someone might think again, get new information, or cause you to think again? That's what open debate is all about.

Bruce's op-ed is well written, informed, articulate and based on ideals I personally hold dear. I'm very proud to be a fan right now.

sd

 

[A_Wanderer]

He has a right to hold his opinion and a right to state his opinion to the world, I have no problem if celebrities want to speak out because I as an individual have the right to agree, disagree or call them a tool. I love freedom of speech.

Great OpEd by the way , its not going to change my mind about the Invasion of Iraq but it certainly raises some good points that I agree with.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

oopz

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Everyone has a right to their opinion, and to speak it. But there is a difference between simply doing that and believing you have the power to change the minds of the masses using your fame. That is what's pretentious.

Also, we are only speaking our minds on a message board no one can see unless they are member. This is a major public event. I hope no one is stupid enough to change their vote because of a bunch of egotistical celebrities alone. Other than REM and JT I dislike all these artists anyway, so I wouldn't go to the show if it weren't political, and even if it were free.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I'm excited for these concerts, but at the same time I'm hoping it doesn't hurt Kerry's chances, since there was all sorts of fallout last year after so many artists spoke out against the war.

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Yeah that's what I mean too, it could backfire if other people see them the same way I do.

But for those of you who enjoy the bands, have a good time! If I liked the bands, I might go just to see the music, but not let them influence me. Still, if my money went to moveon, nah.

 

[kobayashi]

Also, we are only speaking our minds on a message board no one can see unless they are member. This is a major public event. I hope no one is stupid enough to change their vote because of a bunch of egotistical celebrities alone. Other than REM and JT I dislike all these artists anyway, so I wouldn't go to the show if it weren't political, and even if it were free.

good for you. you shouldn't go.

you rationalize that free and open debate is tolerable here because membership is required, while this by itself is flawed, it still rationalizes open speech at these concerts as they are ticketed.

one would need an email address and a user name to participate here just the same as one will need x amount of $s to gain entrance to these shows.

 

[pax]

Well, then, I guess Bono is just a pretentious asshole for doing the broadcasts from Sarajevo during ZOO TV, for even writing "Bullet the Blue Sky," for working for years for debt relief and fair trade for Africa... What a pompous prick, eh?

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well Bono makes the off the cuff remarks about how he doesn't like seeing celebrities with a cause, its all part of public discourse. we live in a saturation media age and celebrities are part of that, politics, conflict and entertainment are melding into one - just look at the coverage of the War in Iraq - its not surprising that the celebs decide to speak out.

 

[speedracer]

Eh...is it just me, or do some of these performers lack the credibility to pull a stunt like this?

Springsteen and REM have expressed some of their political views creatively in their music. But the Dixie Chicks?

 

[Popmartijn]

While the Dixie Chicks maybe haven't expressed their political views in their music (to be honest, I don't know their music, I only have the one track they did at the Tribute To Heroes telethon), they do have outspoken ideas about politics. And they have expressed them before. So why are they less credible to speak their minds?

C ya!

Marty

 

[oliveu2cm]

He has a right to hold his opinion and a right to state his opinion to the world, I have no problem if celebrities want to speak out because I as an individual have the right to agree, disagree or call them a tool. I love freedom of speech.

Freedom of Speech! People stand on street corners hold placards with DAMNATION OR HEAVEN on it and handing out phamplets. No one may listen but they still do it. I see these types of concerts as the same thing- no one may listen but they still do it- because *they need to*.

Just because they are celebrities and are looked up to, they should shut up? Kids look up to their parents, so is it wrong for a parent to express his/her voting preference to the child? The voter can still vote for whomever they want to, and hopefully is making that decision based on their research and beliefs. It's not like their vote shouldn't count if it's based on what their parent/friend/godmother/favorite artist suggested. It's their decision! I think some people make poor decisions on who to vote for and don't examine all sides of certain issues - but I still respect their right to vote for whomever they please.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

He has a right to hold his opinion and a right to state his opinion to the world, I have no problem if celebrities want to speak out because I as an individual have the right to agree, disagree or call them a tool. I love freedom of speech.

Exactly. And to Olive as well.

I don't think anyone's trying to force anything on anybody else-the only way they could really do that is if they dragged a non-Kerry supporter down to their concerts and demanded they agree with everything they were saying, or if somebody who went to the concert and who was a Kerry supporter started bothering some Bush supporter in their neighborhood or something like that. No, I think these people are just going out and giving their opinions, just like everybody else. And if somebody doesn't want to listen to what they have to say, then they don't have to go to the concerts, they can change the channel should one of those celebrities come on TV, etc., etc. And I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed, too.

Angela

 

[Sherry Darling]

Well, then, I guess Bono is just a pretentious asshole for doing the broadcasts from Sarajevo during ZOO TV, for even writing "Bullet the Blue Sky," for working for years for debt relief and fair trade for Africa... What a pompous prick, eh?

Took the words from my mouth, Pax. Not to mention holes like John Lennon and Bob Dylan, who just never shut up.

Guys, politics and art have been in bed together since there was either. Artists, in music, literature, plays, even paintings, have *always* used their muse to express what they think about society and humanity. That's why Plato wanted to outlaw poets (wasn't it Plato?) and why, more recently in Iran, the first group of folks the Ayatollah went after was the artists and intellectuals. Art prods and pushes and provokes. And it should. Now, I believe in, with a nod to Oscar Wilde, art for art's sake. A painting because it's gorgeous or blasting rock'n'roll for no other reason than that it sounds incredible. But to be angered that artists have specific views and opinions they want to share and express, yes in the hopes of persuading and bringing about change, seems to be to be directly opposed to everything I've ever learned about art history.



SD

 

[speedracer]

While the Dixie Chicks maybe haven't expressed their political views in their music (to be honest, I don't know their music, I only have the one track they did at the Tribute To Heroes telethon), they do have outspoken ideas about politics. And they have expressed them before. So why are they less credible to speak their minds?

Well, I just think it's rather silly for them to suddenly try to package their politics and their music in this way when they've never done so before.

Michael Stipe is allowed to go into a leftist rant against the USA before REM rips into "Welcome to the Occupation" or "Bad Day" or "Ignoreland". I don't think the Dixie Chicks aren't going to be able to do anything comparable.

 

[speedracer]

(oops, double post)

 

[kobayashi]

I don't think the Dixie Chicks aren't going to be able to do anything comparable.

they may not do anything 'comparable', but they will attract non-REM fans to the event. whether you agree with the intent or not, that's why it is being done.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Guys, politics and art have been in bed together since there was either. Artists, in music, literature, plays, even paintings, have *always* used their muse to express what they think about society and humanity. That's why Plato wanted to outlaw poets (wasn't it Plato?) and why, more recently in Iran, the first group of folks the Ayatollah went after was the artists and intellectuals. Art prods and pushes and provokes. And it should. Now, I believe in, with a nod to Oscar Wilde, art for art's sake. A painting because it's gorgeous or blasting rock'n'roll for no other reason than that it sounds incredible. But to be angered that artists have specific views and opinions they want to share and express, yes in the hopes of persuading and bringing about change, seems to be to be directly opposed to everything I've ever learned about art history.



SD

.

Angela

 

[speedracer]

they may not do anything 'comparable', but they will attract non-REM fans to the event. whether you agree with the intent or not, that's why it is being done.

Yeah, and I don't think it'll be terribly effective.

Just sayin' is all.

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't think the Dixie Chicks aren't going to be able to do anything comparable.

Please refer to them as the "French Chicks" ......

 

[BluberryPoptart]

Several of you have posted, why the Dixie Chicks? Did everyone forget the Dixie Chicks are famous for their comments about being ashamed to be from Texas? Then they got bashed and got their records burned? Then Bush said, yes they had a right to speak their mind, but so do the people who criticize them, and if you can't take it don't dish it out.

So I think they're some kind of pin up girls for the anti Bush cause.

IMO (which I know means totally nothing and is not respected by any of you of any political viewpoint) the presence of Vedder hurts the credibility of the whole thing, he of the stupid Bush mask slaughter with the mike stand.

 

[nbcrusader]

They're musicians, not political analysts. They are supporting a person, not articulating an issue.

 

[kobayashi]

Several of you have posted, why the Dixie Chicks?

i think we are all aware. it just wasn't explicitly stated.

i believe speedracer identified them as questionable because, in his opinion and as popular logic would dictate, the dixie chicks are unlikely to offer the sort of 'informed criticism' or 'debate' that is expected of REM.