The members of Queen happen to have some very different political views from Donald Trump. Yet in July, Trump fumbled onto the Republican Convention stage in an awkward, meandering introduction while “We Are the Champions” played in the background.
As always, this produced some criticism from the other side of the aisle and from the band itself. This isn’t the first time that left leaning musicians have objected to the use of their music during campaign events or rallies. John McCain faced similar backlash when he used ABBA’s “Take a Chance on Me” at one of his own events during the 2008 campaign. The same story can be repeated for a number of republican presidential candidates from Rand Paul to Scott Walker. This musical boycott is a long standing tradition with liberal musicians, and although nothing ever comes of it the premise is interesting. What’s the big deal over playing music during campaign events?
The Trump Campaign actually did have a license to use the song, but that didn’t stop the band from calling it an ‘unauthorized’ use, or the left from criticizing him. The Rolling Stone quickly published an article on the ‘five reasons why trump shouldn’t use a queen song.’ All of the reasons point out the ideological differences between the band and Trump, which are no doubt substantial. But if people only ever listened to music from artists they agreed with, wouldn’t that defeat the point of art?
There’s a difference between something that’s made to be pleasing or comfortable, and something that’s made to be thought provoking or controversial. The difference is that the latter is art, while the former is simply an aesthetic. Art must be taken in context, not only by the eloquence of its composition. It sends a message. In essence, art really only provokes change when witnessed by someone who doesn’t get that message.
It’s better to have your opponent at least somewhat attentive to your art and exposed to your views than shutout altogether. It may be irritating to see them enjoying it, but the artist has to at least hope that it will reach a person or two and start a discussion. When musicians come out and protest the use of their music, they do start a discussion, but it’s not the right type of discussion. It’s confrontational and it serves to say ‘you’re not one of us, don’t try to be.’ If the intent is to bridge gaps or bring people to your way of thinking, that’s the entirely wrong approach. A better tactic would be to make the ideological disparity between the artist and the audience known, but at the same time frame the discussion in a productive manner. Leave the door open, because really no one reacts well when they are told they can’t participate.
Even if Queen were successful in stopping Trump from playing ‘We Are the Champions,” it’s unclear what purpose that would have served. Every republican who likes the song is still going to listen to it. Perhaps the only thing it does is to further isolate the Republican Party from pop culture (Yes, ‘We Are the Champions’ is from 1977, but hey it’s still going strong). If that’s the intent, then so be it; however, if the concern is with a two party system that pushes each side to ideological extremes and leaves no room for new ideas or forward thinking, a dose of pop culture and youth is probably exactly what is needed.
So really when it comes to music and politics, live and let live. If anything, liberal artists should want their music played by republicans, otherwise, they are basically saying that they’ve given up on the point of art altogether.