THink Stiff Little fingers... Good music but ah you all know what i mean.

I have no problem with musical artists supporting whatever political causes they want. I can enjoy their music even if they don't agree with my personal politics (but then politics aren't very important to me). I've always enjoyed bands with strong political stances, actually, and I think it's just because I can appreciate their passion and committment to a cause, whether or not I agree with the cause.

By and large it has to be adviseable for musicians to do their talking with their music. I know I'm not the only one that gets pissed of with Bono's sanctimonious preaching about everything. If a musician has a social conscience that is tuned in to all the wrongs going on in the world then surely it should consistently manifest itself in their music. This clearly isn't the case when it comes to the likes of Damien Rice, which makes it hard to believe that they really are all that concerned about the issue at hand. Having said that, I can't really see any reason why he'd need to jump on this band wagon seeing as his album has pretty much reached saturation point in this country already. I just think that there's nothing worse than a musician who becomes so convinced that they know where we're all going wrong that they feel they have to point us in the right direction

Ironic that he shares a name with the renowned authoritarian who dispatched the anti-government idol Billy the Kid..

bands are in a great position to make younger people aware of politics I can't disagree with this comment but if it's a disingenuous sentiment on the musicians part that gets people to oppose war because it's cool, it doesn't really help anyone. In my opinion, if the musician can not give their audience something relevant to think about on the particular subject they don't really have any right to be there. This probably sounds very moralistic but gigs like this shouldn't just be aimed at profile raising but education and insiteful comment. Otherwise why not just trot out westlife etc. That would be profile raising and arguably on a larger scale

Very good point indeed.....can't argue with that one

I dont care who is promoting a worthy cause or for what reasons, if it helps the cause, feck it, end justifies the means and all. for the record, i hate sh1te cabaret cheese merchants like westlife, and fully endorse their being thrown into a volcano or something, but at the end of the day folks, if they sang a song about a kid getting his leg blown off in Iraq, i think it would reach more ears than if someone with the most credibility amongst musicians/ generally knowledgable music fans, sang it. (think about it, who would get to more people right now if they brought out a single covering said topic, Christy Moore or Westlife?) Dont bull on this one.) i hate this fact, but its the truth. the horrible, terrifying truth! So if the cause is worthy and needs more attention, then i support a gung ho strategy on the whole promotion of the issue thing.

HTe point of music is to express yourself - convey an idea through sound. Some people feel some things very strongly, eg love songs or angry thrash metal songs or whatever. Musicians should be allowed express their views in the way they find easiest as much as writers or anyone else. but they shouldn't try to push it on people or influence people. We're far too malleable these days...

ok, there's a big difference between simply tossing some politicized single into the world and actually trying to educate people. I don't know the first thing about this Anti-Bush gig, but at gigs like it that i've been to, there's always tables, information to gather, people to talk to about volunteering, helping out, making a difference etc. A concert like that should be an outreach to the community, something to educate and involve people (usually young people) who might not otherwise stay informed. Westlife tossing some single into the world might make people pay attention, but it's not going to get them off their seats to DO anything really...a concert where people can start food drives, start volunteering, even just put themselves on mailing lists and commit to staying informed...these things are a start; they actually matter... At the same time, a benefit show raises a distinct issue. An outreach concert is, i think, always a good thing, but with benefit shows people should take care to watch what they're benefitting. A few years ago i wanted to go to a benefit gig but didn't know the first thing about the cause, so i read up on it and decided it was worth donating my money. Another friend read up on it and decided she didn't feel comfortable going. So that's another thing to consider. If this Anti-Bush gig was to raise awareness then cheers to them, if it was to benefit the anti-war movement, i think it is the responsibility of concert-goers to FIRST educate themselves about the war before throwing down money just to catch damien rice again... That said, Jules's picks for political songs (blowin in the wind and the rest) absolutely heightened people's awareness of certain issues/sentiments. So, perhaps, when it comes to songwriting, the a band ought to MAKE a point, rather than simply reiterate one? early political songs from acts like U2 and Bruce Springsteen really moved people, while new ones fall flat, because they're predictably anti-war or anti-bush. Basically, I don't know that there should be one answer to whether music and politics mix, because there's too many ways to mix the two for there to be one all-encompassing rule... that's my piece. ...for now...