Contemporary Music and its Effects on Political Ideology
Many scholars have studied, or attempted to study, the effect that music has on its listeners’ political ideologies. This has proven to be a difficult task, however, with the myriad of factors that come to play in surveying or experimenting with music listeners. General assumption of political music is that rock and roll results in a liberalizing effect, while country and folk music produce conservative ideologies in listeners. This essay is designed to show how these assumptions, as well as other findings regarding the effect of music on ideology are based on unwarranted assumptions and how the two factors are not causally related, even if correlations do exist.
The most convincing argument supporting a relationship between music genres and political beliefs comes from William Fox and James Williams in their self-administered questionnaires completed by Iowan college students in 1973. Fox and Williams analyzed demographic characteristics, including hometown size, father’s income, and class year, against the students’ political party preferences as well as their musical interests. Using cross-tabulations, Fox and Williams claimed to have found some of the factors to relate to each other. Their findings show that conservative students are more likely to enjoy popular hits and easy listening music. Liberals, on the other hand, are shown to prefer folk music and blues. Going against common assumption, the study did NOT find a correlation between conservatives and country music, nor between liberals and rock music. The survey found that demographical characteristics are largely unrelated to students’ preferences to music genres. Some slight correlations may exist, but none were stronger to affirm a conclusion than ideology and genre preference.
Another factor measured was students’ involvement with music in regards to concerts attended, records purchased, and radio listening. The returned results were somewhat fascinating. Conservatives had a strong correlation with listening to music on the radio, whilst liberals were shown to be more prone to buying records and attending concerts. In looking into the fundamental focuses of each ideology, one may argue that conservatives are less likely to support musicians and cultural artists; whereas liberals may be found to support such ‘liberal’ arts. Financially speaking, the results found support this claim- as concerts and records have a monetary cost while radio listening is free. In connecting this analysis with genre preferences, one may argue that easy listening and popular hits (although lesser so) are genres that generally do not have fanatical support. This would also follow the conservatives’ general lack of musical support. Compare this to blues and folk artists who generate fan bases and followings. This can be linked to liberals’ preferences in music and their propensity to support musical artists.
Many factors in this study went largely untouched upon. First to mention is the era. The 1970s represented a huge surge in the popularity of rock music. Perhaps conservatives and liberals alike were found to have very similar high interest in rock music purely based on this social surge. For this reason, perhaps the claim that liberals listen to rock music should not have been rejected. Second, claiming that these correlations represent causation may be overstepping the surveys bounds. The possibility of ideology affecting musical interest, as opposed to the opposite, was not at all explored. Also, any research done on the effect of music on ideology solely focuses on the lyrics of the songs. This neglects any effect that the rhythm, beat, or melody may have upon listeners. Finally, the assumption that listeners pay attention or even understand any political meaning in songs can not yet be made. Robinson and Hirsch, in their findings, suggest that only a minority of teenagers understand the intended meanings of songs. They also conclude that “popular music may have a minimal impact upon the majority of its audience” (358).
David Dunaway, in his article “Popular Music and Communication”, identifies the functions of political music. These include, but are not limited to, arousing support for a movement, describing social problems, and creating social cohesion for members in a movement. Let us analyze these functions with respect to contemporary rock music. Bands like System of a Down and Rage Against the Machine have significant political undertones in their lyrics. The music they play is aggressive and can be considered ‘protest music’. The fanbase of these groups are assumed to be liberal radicals who are anti establishment and anarchist. The groups certainly describe social problems in their lyrics, they arouse support by their fans, and create cohesion against a movement. These functions, however, should not be confused with causal factors of political ideology. The average listener is presumably politically apathetic, as is more than half of the United States (when looking at voter turnout in even presidential elections). Their concerts certainly bring together large groups of people with similar interests, and fans may even learn the lyrics to particular politically charged songs. However, the end result of the music is the release of teenage aggression. The melodies and rhythms build energy, anger, or even negative sentiment towards establishments.
“Drug money is used to rig elections, and train brutal corporate sponsored dictators around the world.” This is a line out of Prison Song by System of a Down. Does this song have political references? Yes. Does this song prove any unjust governmental action? No. The result on listeners of this song, and others, could potentially be negative feelings toward the government, but it is unlikely that the average listener gets motivated to do research on the topic, or becomes motivated to make a change. Teen angst and aggression must find its release somewhere, and it has found that place in music. The large populaces of American music listeners do nothing political resulting from such music. The average System of a Down fan probably doesn’t even vote, although I do not have statistical evidence to support this claim.
“Music’s effect on the political process is subtle and virtually impossible to measure, even in retrospect. The impact of a political song is often separate in time and space from the original performance.” (51) This is how Dunaway concludes his research. Much more research and analysis must be rigorously tested and tried before a true causal effect can be concluded. As of now, that evidence does not exist. This topic is particularly interesting to me, because the aforementioned song actually DID get me to research information on the prison system in the U.S. and eventually I became very politically involved. I serve as an anomaly, as none of my peers that I know had the same result. Originally, I was one of the many whom sought out hard rock music as a release of energy and/or aggression, but became one of the few who may have been ideologically affected (I have many problems with the prison system today). Music is like religion, an opiate for the masses. Unfortunately, this opiate is desired to satisfy purely personal, not political, ends.
The most convincing argument supporting a relationship between music genres and political beliefs comes from William Fox and James Williams in their self-administered questionnaires completed by Iowan college students in 1973. Fox and Williams analyzed demographic characteristics, including hometown size, father’s income, and class year, against the students’ political party preferences as well as their musical interests. Using cross-tabulations, Fox and Williams claimed to have found some of the factors to relate to each other. Their findings show that conservative students are more likely to enjoy popular hits and easy listening music. Liberals, on the other hand, are shown to prefer folk music and blues. Going against common assumption, the study did NOT find a correlation between conservatives and country music, nor between liberals and rock music. The survey found that demographical characteristics are largely unrelated to students’ preferences to music genres. Some slight correlations may exist, but none were stronger to affirm a conclusion than ideology and genre preference.
Another factor measured was students’ involvement with music in regards to concerts attended, records purchased, and radio listening. The returned results were somewhat fascinating. Conservatives had a strong correlation with listening to music on the radio, whilst liberals were shown to be more prone to buying records and attending concerts. In looking into the fundamental focuses of each ideology, one may argue that conservatives are less likely to support musicians and cultural artists; whereas liberals may be found to support such ‘liberal’ arts. Financially speaking, the results found support this claim- as concerts and records have a monetary cost while radio listening is free. In connecting this analysis with genre preferences, one may argue that easy listening and popular hits (although lesser so) are genres that generally do not have fanatical support. This would also follow the conservatives’ general lack of musical support. Compare this to blues and folk artists who generate fan bases and followings. This can be linked to liberals’ preferences in music and their propensity to support musical artists.
Many factors in this study went largely untouched upon. First to mention is the era. The 1970s represented a huge surge in the popularity of rock music. Perhaps conservatives and liberals alike were found to have very similar high interest in rock music purely based on this social surge. For this reason, perhaps the claim that liberals listen to rock music should not have been rejected. Second, claiming that these correlations represent causation may be overstepping the surveys bounds. The possibility of ideology affecting musical interest, as opposed to the opposite, was not at all explored. Also, any research done on the effect of music on ideology solely focuses on the lyrics of the songs. This neglects any effect that the rhythm, beat, or melody may have upon listeners. Finally, the assumption that listeners pay attention or even understand any political meaning in songs can not yet be made. Robinson and Hirsch, in their findings, suggest that only a minority of teenagers understand the intended meanings of songs. They also conclude that “popular music may have a minimal impact upon the majority of its audience” (358).
David Dunaway, in his article “Popular Music and Communication”, identifies the functions of political music. These include, but are not limited to, arousing support for a movement, describing social problems, and creating social cohesion for members in a movement. Let us analyze these functions with respect to contemporary rock music. Bands like System of a Down and Rage Against the Machine have significant political undertones in their lyrics. The music they play is aggressive and can be considered ‘protest music’. The fanbase of these groups are assumed to be liberal radicals who are anti establishment and anarchist. The groups certainly describe social problems in their lyrics, they arouse support by their fans, and create cohesion against a movement. These functions, however, should not be confused with causal factors of political ideology. The average listener is presumably politically apathetic, as is more than half of the United States (when looking at voter turnout in even presidential elections). Their concerts certainly bring together large groups of people with similar interests, and fans may even learn the lyrics to particular politically charged songs. However, the end result of the music is the release of teenage aggression. The melodies and rhythms build energy, anger, or even negative sentiment towards establishments.
“Drug money is used to rig elections, and train brutal corporate sponsored dictators around the world.” This is a line out of Prison Song by System of a Down. Does this song have political references? Yes. Does this song prove any unjust governmental action? No. The result on listeners of this song, and others, could potentially be negative feelings toward the government, but it is unlikely that the average listener gets motivated to do research on the topic, or becomes motivated to make a change. Teen angst and aggression must find its release somewhere, and it has found that place in music. The large populaces of American music listeners do nothing political resulting from such music. The average System of a Down fan probably doesn’t even vote, although I do not have statistical evidence to support this claim.
“Music’s effect on the political process is subtle and virtually impossible to measure, even in retrospect. The impact of a political song is often separate in time and space from the original performance.” (51) This is how Dunaway concludes his research. Much more research and analysis must be rigorously tested and tried before a true causal effect can be concluded. As of now, that evidence does not exist. This topic is particularly interesting to me, because the aforementioned song actually DID get me to research information on the prison system in the U.S. and eventually I became very politically involved. I serve as an anomaly, as none of my peers that I know had the same result. Originally, I was one of the many whom sought out hard rock music as a release of energy and/or aggression, but became one of the few who may have been ideologically affected (I have many problems with the prison system today). Music is like religion, an opiate for the masses. Unfortunately, this opiate is desired to satisfy purely personal, not political, ends.