Wednesday, April 16, 2025

Travelogue 4.2025: Random Reflections of a Wobbly Wobbly

I tend to write a few thousand words about whatever comes to mind at the end of one of my concert tours.  Sometimes it's all fairly coherent, but coherency or consistency isn't necessarily the point of these travelogues, unless that's how the world appears to be -- which it generally doesn't.

I'll start where I left off with the last travelogue, after Kamala and I left Mexico, which was on March 24th, after a spectacular five days we spent there, celebrating St. Patrick, the St. Patrick Battalion, international solidarity, and everything Irish.  We both knew the beginning of the tour -- our stay in Mexico City -- would be the highlight of it, and it was, though the rest of it was just wonderful.

The entire tour was more a working vacation than anything else.  I mostly blame my own lack of organization for the tour not being as busy as it could have been.  Kamala is trying to help me with this project of getting better organized, but we have a long way to go with that.  The fact is, if someone hasn't organized a gig for me in the past couple years, I tend to forget they exist, from an organizational standpoint at least, and they generally stop hearing from me.  If they're not actively looking to see what I'm up to, or actively paying attention to my email list or social media posts, then we lose touch with each other.  This is very bad, but it's how it is.

One thing I'm a bit better at keeping track of is which ones of my friends have homes with nice accommodations for guests.  The geographical concentration of the gigs meant that although we had 10 appearances between Los Angeles, England, and Scotland over the past 3 weeks, we only stayed in 5 different homes during these travels, thus adding to the holiday vibe.

One of the most striking aspects of traveling these days that I tend to forget to mention in these travelogues is that the US and the UK are disposable countries.  The amount of trash generated by the average individual in these countries on a daily basis is absolutely staggering -- nothing like what life is like for me at home, where I make my own espresso drinks in my own kitchen, and use real porcelain cups, like most people do at home.

While it is indeed the case that I have in the past had more than one relative in my extended family who was so disinclined to wash dishes that they used paper plates for every meal, one might hope that this kind of extremely wasteful orientation would now be a thing of the past, but it isn't.  It is, in fact, completely institutionalized, and this in the allegedly most progressive and ecological states in the USA -- California.

Whether you're going out for a coffee in the bohemian enclave of Topanga or going out to eat in the more touristy parts of LA, whether you ask for your food or drink to be "for here" or "to go," everything will be served to you in disposable paper and plastic packaging.  As far as I understand the phenomenon, it is cheaper for businesses to do this than to actually wash and reuse dishes.  Given the insane rents most of them are paying to barely stay afloat, every corner that can be cut must be cut.  

And given that the allegedly progressive, ecological state of California utterly fails to regulate much of anything, most definitely including disposable packaging, everywhere you go, if you eat or drink out, you will end up creating enough garbage in a given day that could easily fill a typical kitchen-size trash bag.  This practice of serving people food in disposable packaging could be banned in the stroke of a pen, as it was in France, but no -- not in the land where capitalism rules supreme.

England, Scotland, and Wales are all the same as the USA in this regard.  As with every other bad practice adopted by folks in the USA, it's also become the norm in the land that many British leftists have long referred to alternatively as Airstrip 1 or the 51st State.

When we got to LA we were hearing about chaos at Heathrow Airport in London, which had shut down completely for a day because of a power outage resulting from a fire somewhere near the airport.

Fire also characterized the landscape in LA.  Authorities had shut down access to most of the burned-out neighborhoods, but we took lots of walks around the Topanga Canyon State Park, from which many scorched hillsides could be seen.

While it is indeed the case that a US state has the power to regulate things like disposable packaging use within its borders, seeing the destruction wrought by the recent fires that destroyed so much of Los Angeles, hearing about the mass layoffs throughout the federal government, and hearing about Trump's wacko views on why the western states are so fire-prone, it's all extremely worrying.  The situation was extremely worrying before Trump, but now dramatically more so.

Over half of the state of Oregon is federal land.  Oregon also had the biggest wildfires of anywhere in the US in 2024, so many of which originated on federal land.  If it's just up to state and local authorities to deal with these massive fires, as it seems it soon will be, we can expect many more catastrophes on the level of what just happened in Los Angeles, and soon.

Even if California or Oregon were run by people who had any real interest in dealing with this situation rather than helping the real estate industry profit from it, even if these states were run by people who were prepared to regulate the housing market to stop society from sprawling further and further into the flammable forests further and further away from the urban centers, we'd still be totally fucked, due to the federal government's abdication of any responsibility in managing lands under federal control.

The first most noticeable things about flying into LAX as well as flying into Heathrow was the line at immigration was shorter than either Kamala or I have ever seen.  People may be on the move all over the world, but not many of them seem to be flying into either Los Angeles or London these days.

By a freak coincidence, the clouds parted the moment we landed, and the sun shone down from entirely blue skies everywhere we went, up until our last full day on the island, during which time it drizzled a little bit.  Though sunny, it was still mostly cool and breezy.  Altogether perfect weather, if you don't think too hard about it.  But when anyone we met wasn't busy enjoying the unusually sunny and unseasonably warm weather, they were talking about how unusually dry and flammable so much vegetation was looking like, listening to BBC reports about how the island received 1/4 its usual amount of rainfall for the month of March, and fearing for the future.  The moors have already been catching fire on occasion in recent years, and look set to do that lots more in the next few.

Our three weeks between England and Scotland on this tour involved a full schedule of gigs on three consecutive weekends, but with very little to do in between, aside from having lots of time to make the trip between England and Scotland and back.  So we had plenty of time free to get into trouble, which included singing at three different protests.

Unlike our last tour of that island that shall not be named lest we offend a Scottish nationalist, this time there was no evidence that anyone seemed to hear about in terms of my various cancelation campaigners from either the pro-genocide Israel supporters or the anarcho-puritan sectarian leftists.  This may be because the right noticed their efforts were mainly serving to give them bad publicity, and the anarcho-puritans are thinking better of being on the same side as the Zionists while Israel is committing genocide.

Or it may be because people offering to organize gigs for me have learned to be very careful about choosing venues.  Your typical pub that's barely staying in business can be easily pressured by letters threatening legal action.  If the venue is owned by a labor union, on the other hand, they're much harder to intimidate, and if it's a venue associated with the Irish or Scottish Republican cause, they're used to being called terrorist sympathizers, so such accusations against me slide right off.  Most of the venues we played in on this tour were either associated with a union or with republicanism of the Celtic variety.

Our first gig in England was at the Islington Folk Club, and as always, it was packed, and a great night.  I don't know what that folk club is like on the nights I'm not there, but whenever I'm the feature act, all the songs other participants do leading up to my sets are full of radical notions, while still generally staying within the fold of what is easily recognizable as traditional or trad music from one of those islands just to the north and west of France.  Every time I play at Islington I get to hear yet another poignant a cappella song about a hapless young man who was conscripted into service for the British Empire, only to die young in the process.

Two different Palestine-related fundraisers in Portsmouth were two more opportunities to hear more great music, and poetry and storytelling as well.  The person we stayed with there, as it happened, was marking the anniversary of the death of his son, who was a beautiful young man who had been very active working in solidarity with refugees in France, along with his dad, and then when what they call the full-scale war began in Ukraine, he joined the Ukrainians in their fight against Russia, and got killed.

On our way up to Scotland, where we had gigs on our second weekend on the unnamed island, we spent a glorious day hiking in the mountains of Cumbria with friends who live in Penrith, and communing with the Danish sheep that the Vikings brought over to England a thousand years ago.

In Scotland, which is even less used to sunny weather than England is, many people were quite visibly turning pink from sunburn.  Apparently hospitalizations increase in Scotland during sunny weather, due to the tendency of certain Scottish folks to have no clue about the existence of sunburn as a phenomenon, and also their tendency to drink too much alcohol in reaction to the sun coming out, which I don't quite understand.

A relatively new operation being run by a collection of musical radicals in Glasgow is the Keelie Folk Club, who were responsible for organizing both of our Glasgow gigs, each of which was in a really cool venue with a long history of being on the side of the people -- Galgael, a community center that is a home away from home for the homeless and other disenfranchised elements of society, and Lynch's Bar, which was a venue where secret republican gatherings were being held in the days before I was born, and it's been in the Lynch family there ever since.  The granddaughter of the founding family of the place was working the bar during our show there.

One of the fine upstanding radicals who came to the show at Lynch's Bar was the son of the union shop steward at the Rolls Royce factory in East Kilbride who initiated the campaign to boycott any work for the Chilean Air Force's plane engines -- a campaign which resulted in the Chilean Air Force for a time having zero functional fighter planes.

In addition to doing another excellent show in Edinburgh, organized by the same collection of peaceniks who have organized gigs for me there consistently for many years, we played at a protest rally for Gaza in the depressed, post-industrial city of Paisley.  

I talked to many people in both Scotland and England who were very involved with the big rallies for Gaza that have been happening every Saturday since October, 2023, who lamented the fact that the big rallies in Glasgow and London never involve live music.  Rather, they generally involve the same people speaking, expressing the same outrage, and otherwise saying the same things -- things that everyone who goes to such rallies already knows, which is why they're there.

Paisley, instead, was a much more inspiring affair than that, at least.  Still a bit heavy on speakers, but featuring a bunch of music, which made a big -- and entirely positive -- difference.

The way this was organized followed the same kind of logic I am so often preaching to anyone who will listen, about how a rally organizer can make use of local musical talent to improve a rally immensely, and make people want to come to the next one.  Of the four musical acts that were part of the rally, there were two that were singing songs that were specifically about the genocide at hand -- us, and a jazz pianist who wrote one song on the subject, and that's the one she did.  The other musicians included a bagpipe player who played "Amazing Grace" -- which may not be about Palestine, but anyone who is familiar with the song and its meaning can both see and be profoundly moved by the relationship there -- and a couple of folks who did a set of songs that were against war, and written in the 1960's.

Now, some folks will cringe at the very notion of having anyone singing songs from the 1960's at an antiwar protest, and this is really sad.  People know and like these songs, so why should they not be sung?  Especially when there's other music on the program that is more honed in on the particular genocide at hand, songs about other genocidal wars, such as the one the US military waged against the peoples of Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia, a set of songs from the Sixties fits right in to the mix.

Their set was a perfect example of what can happen if you ask local musicians to do a set at a protest rally.  Maybe they normally sing cover songs in local pubs as a general rule, and they're not politically-oriented troubadours like some of us are.  But then they can just choose a few of those cover songs they sing in the pubs for the right kind of content and voila, you've got a perfect set for an antiwar protest.

As it happened, on the same day that we were singing at the protest in Paisley, across the US there were 1,200 "Hands Off" protests against aspects of the Trump agenda that Democrats oppose, a tiny handful of which included live performers of any kind.  (And folks who follow me on Substack may have already read the essay I wrote that was inspired by the lack of music at those protests -- Why We Abandoned Our Most Effective Tactic.)

Back in England again for our last of three weeks on the island that some people call by the name of "England, Scotland, and Wales" -- which I maintain is a ridiculous name for an island that the Greeks named something along the lines of "Britain" thousands of years ago -- we had a lovely, windy day on the south coast city of Hastings, which seemed more abandoned than it had before, maybe because the last time I was there it was a bit later in the year, when some people go to the coast to lay on the beach and such, which no sensible person would have done on the day we were there.  Well, there were a couple of scantily-clad sunbathers freezing on the beach there, but only a couple.

Along with a packed crowd at the London Action Resource Center with us and Steve White and the Protest Family performing, that weekend in London coincided with a protest folks organized at the US Embassy, which ended with Kamala and I and other folks performing at the encampment that folks have been maintaining for months now, across from the embassy.

The new US Embassy in London is a massive, modern building that still has a palatial quality to it, given that it is basically surrounded by a mote.  It's a pretty mote, but still very obviously a mote.  Prior to our action there, Greenpeace activists had come around with some kind of red dye, and made the mote turn red.  The water in the mote is recycled, so clearly putting the red dye in it was a great plan, because days later, it was still blood red.

On the day we were there, a couple hundred folks came around to participate in a mostly silent surrounding of the embassy, with lots of banners against the genocide, and various powerful, artistic representations of the thousands of children that have been relentlessly killed by the Israeli military in Gaza over the past 18+ months.

What's happening 24-7 across from the embassy is a little peace camp, with big banners on display at all times, along with clotheslines with children's clothes and other artistic ways to try to communicate the horrors of Israel's kindercide to passersby.  The embassy workers mostly walk right through the encampment from the nearest subway stop, on the way to and from work, along  with lots of other people.  From what I saw that day, most passersby are either sympathetic, or disinterested, but rarely hostile.  Which seemed notable, given the very upper-crust neighborhood the embassy is located in.

Our very last musical appearance in England was another protest camp, one we only heard about at the Gaza solidarity encampment.  Folks associated with the venerable Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament were to set up camp outside the gates of the Lakenheath Royal Air Force base north of the city of Cambridge, where it was recently revealed in a tabloid media scoop that the US and UK have for years been making secret arrangements to use Lakenheath as a base for American nuclear missiles -- much to the horror of many local residents. 

The CND has been around a long time, as have some of the principal CND organizers.  Given that many of them are from that generation we call the Sixties generation, or somewhat younger folks profoundly influenced by that generation, the idea of including lots of music and art as part of this peace camp was automatic.  When I emailed on Saturday to offer to do a show there on Tuesday, I heard back from them right away, with an enthusiastic "yes please."  After getting to the camp I learned that some of my favorite radical musicians from southern England such as Robb Johnson and the band, Seize the Day, also had plans to come perform there the following day.  Such a wild contrast with what happens when I offer to sing at a protest in the USA in recent years -- that is, nothing.

Over the decades it has often seemed at the bigger rallies in the US that used to have music at them that if we had a good sound system and an otherwise optimal setup, inevitably this would mean the rally would get drowned out by a police helicopter hovering overhead.  Of course, if the sound system sucked and no one could hear the stage anyway, the helicopter might be absent.  In the case of our little concert at the gates of the Lakenheath RAF base, the loud noises occasionally drowning out the music came from fighter jets taking off very nearby.

As it happens, the day I left Heathrow to head home to Oregon was April 16th, and the 25th anniversary of the A16 protests in Washington, DC, when tens of thousands of people came to commit nonviolent civil disobedience, surrounding a 90-block section of the city, and severely hampering the operations of the IMF/World Bank summit that was happening there that week, which was cut short because of our activities.

My first flight back to the US was the main one, from London to Seattle.  Whereas at LAX and Heathrow my experience at immigration was one of waiting for about two minutes in a very short line before breezing through, in Seatac there was no line at all.  I just walked right up to one guy who was working there, and that was it.  The last time I came to Seatac Airport on an international flight, which was maybe a year ago, the line for immigration was a mile long, as it usually has been at LAX and Heathrow.

Not now, of course.  Every hour I hear new stories of the deportations of permanent residents for participating in protests, and others being sent with no trial or judicial process to some kind of endless sentence in a gulag in El Salvador.  And today as I land back in the land of the free, Trump is finally talking openly about treating US citizens to the same fate.

I don't know what's coming next, but I do know that the US left is in the most anemic and incompetent condition it has ever been in since the 1950's.  But at least back then we had Pete Seeger, and even a widespread affection for the notion that music was a powerful medium for communication.  Compared to now, really, the state of domestic dissent in the 1950's looks pretty good.  I wish I could say, therefore, that there was nowhere to go but up, but looking at reality, anyone with a passing familiarity with the history of fascism can tell you that that's not true.

Friday, April 11, 2025

Why We Abandoned Our Most Effective Tactic

“The song is a weapon of struggle, an instrument of the people.”
Victor Jara

“The song is the torch that lights the path of resistance.”
Ahmad Kaabour

“A song can make the powerful tremble.”
Georges Brassens

“Music is the weapon of the future.”
Fela Kuti

“I sing because the people sing with me.”
Mercedes Sosa

“Songs are funny things. They can slip across borders. Proliferate in prisons. Penetrate hard shells. I always believed that the right song at the right moment could change history.”
Pete Seeger
Last month my singing partner and I were in Mexico City to sing at a festival.  One of the folks we talked to was a former guerrilla fighter with the FMLN from El Salvador.  At some point in our conversation I mentioned how in the US we almost never have live music at protest rallies anymore.  Our friend was aghast.

"But music is the beating heart of the resistance," he said.

He said a lot more, but that was the gist of it.

Last weekend Kamala and I were in Scotland -- singing, among other places, at a protest in opposition to Israel's ongoing genocidal war against the Palestinian people.

On the same day that we were singing in Paisley, there were somewhere around 1,200 rallies happening all over the United States, the theme mainly being opposition to Trump's agenda, especially the aspects of it that are also opposed by the Democratic Party.

I have many longtime friends who have not been previously involved with activism to speak of, who have recently gotten mobilized in the movement against the ongoing purges or complete eliminations of entire government agencies.  Many are employed by the federal government.

As a social movement aficionado, I was curious to see if this new movement springing up would break with any of the trends that have beset so much of US society in recent years and decades that have resulted in, among other developments, the almost complete lack of live music anywhere to be seen in the midst of a protest rally or march.

I have tried through various means to get an impression of what was going on at those 1,200 rallies.  I hope after I publish this piece I will hear from lots of people telling me my impression is woefully mistaken, but from what I have managed to gather, the vast majority of those 3 million or so people who came together across the US last Saturday spent a couple hours listening to speeches and chants, and, with only a handful of exceptions that I've heard of thus far, heard no live music in between those speeches and chants.

So, the anti-music trend continues.  But why?

I've spent a lot of time writing about why live music is such an effective tool for any social movement for bringing people together, fostering and sustaining a vibrant feeling of community and purpose, and making movement gatherings of any kind something people find inspiration from, in the face of whatever horrors they're facing.

I've written a lot about how music is so vital to social movements around the world today and historically, and I've tried to illustrate my writings with lots of pertinent examples.  I've written about how the past 10 or so years of an almost completely nonmusical resistance in the US is a rare exception in history, a real outlier, and also an inherently doomed one.

What I haven't put much effort in to is trying to flesh out how this situation arose.  What factors have gone into people across the US who are organizing protests over the past decade or so generally deciding not to have live music at their events?  How did so many people get the impression, all at the same time, that live music at protests was a bad idea?  What are the rationales for excluding the beating heart of the movement from the movement?  Why treat the beating heart as if it were cancer, and remove it?  How did this happen?

For my purposes here, I will take it as a given that we all agree that music is the beating heart of any potentially successful social movement.  Around the world, protest rallies involving people facing the most dire of circumstances, from Egypt to Yemen to South Africa to Chile to Mexico, can very aptly be described as festivals of resistance, with an emphasis on the festival part -- rallies in most countries are characterized by music, and everyone singing together.  Everyone in most of the world who is a participant in a social movement knows how important the music is for the movement.

Lots of people in the US know it, too, if they're old enough to have lived through movements in which music and culture also played a central role.

Rather than spending any more effort convincing people of the obvious and dire need for much, much more music within the landscape of whatever constitutes the resistance, the left, the opposition, or whatever we may call it, I'll assume we all understand keenly the need for music, and I'll explore some of the reasons why it may be that it's not happening.

I hope that my exploration of the reasons organizers choose not to involve live music in their protest rallies will be helpful, specifically for those organizers out there who see the importance of including live performers in protests, but are getting voted down when they propose the idea, and they'd like to have more arrows in their quiver of arguments in favor of music.

Before I get into the various particulars that I've become familiar with around how these things happen -- or don't -- I'd make the overall point about each of the justifications for excluding music that they all have merit, which is why they seem so convincing to many.  But while each justification for excluding music has merit, if the concern in question leads to the conclusion, "and therefore we'll skip having live music at the rally," then something is probably very wrong with the logical process that got you there.

The answer is always to have live music at the rally -- never not to.  If you arrive at the answer that it shouldn't be part of the rally, then the process through which you arrived at that answer needs to be thrown out, or seriously reoriented.  If it's a matter of picking one performer over another, that's different, and necessary for any competent organizer to engage in making such calls, around programming decisions for both performers and speakers (unless you're hosting an open mic, which can also be a fine thing to do to bring people together and help sustain community).

I don't know if any of these points below seem strange, but they're all the kinds of rationales I've encountered regularly, which is why I'm including any of them.

OK, reasons for excluding live music from the program, and responses to them.

1.  A festival atmosphere is inappropriate for having a protest around such important, serious issues.

When we look at the world around us -- not necessarily around us in the contemporary US, but around the world beyond the US -- and historically in the US and most everywhere else -- we can see that music is the beating heart of any resistance movement.

So how would it be that anyone would come to think there is something frivolous or unnecessary about music?

We can explore this question in all kinds of ways, but the answer comes out the same regardless -- whatever form of logic caused anyone to draw the conclusion that "therefore live music is superfluous and we won't have it in our rallies" is working with a flawed understanding of how social movements have grown and sustained themselves around the world and within the US over the generations and centuries.

It may have been a flawed understanding derived from the influence of Puritanism or some other anti-musical tradition, or a flawed idea introduced by nefarious actors seeking to make sure your movement doesn't grow, or it may have come from some other source.  But it's a hypothesis with no evidence to back it up, whereas the evidence for music being the lifeblood of a social movement is tremendously abundant and global in scope.

2.  A festival atmosphere reminds us and everybody else of the 1960's, and sex, drugs, rock & roll, and hedonists who weren't serious about social change.

In post 1960's USA we are still living in the shadow of the 1960's, and there are reasons for this.

The biggest social movements and the ones that were most threatening to the status quo in the history of the twentieth century in the US have been intensely musical ones -- notably the radical labor movement led by the Industrial Workers of the World in the early part of the century, the Communist Party and associated groups in the 1930's, and later the Civil Rights and antiwar movements of the 1950's and 1960's.

At the time the 1960's antiwar movement was happening and up to the present day, this movement has been dismissed by the mainstream media as consisting of drug-addled, sex-obsessed freaks for whom activism was some kind of a distant afterthought.

Few things could be further from the truth of the matter, and that is actually why this movement continues to be so rejected by the corporate media and other such institutions.  The antiwar movement in the 1960's employed the use of music, in the form of free festivals, antiwar coffeehouses outside of every military base in the country, and so much more.  This movement successfully demilitarized the hearts and minds of millions, and was acknowledged by the leaders of the country at the time to have had a tremendous impact on the ability of the leaders of the country to keep drafting new soldiers, and in their efforts to make them obey orders.

Music was so central to this movement, that any association with it must today still be a negative one.  To actually learn from the past would be far too dangerous.  So, they were just a bunch of ridiculous, utopian hippies.  Look the other way.

3.  We are protesting around a specific set of issues and demands, and musicians are likely to go off-message, possibly in a way that offends someone and/or dilutes our message.

While it is always worth watching out for nefarious actors who want to come ruin your event for you, the vast majority of musicians who are interested in playing for free at a protest are in it because they want to support the cause, and perhaps because they know that their participation in the protest will serve just such a purpose.  Good musicians, of all people, tend to understand the value of music.

It is true, however, that they may not stick to a particular message.  The question is, does that actually matter?  What I think you'll find if you explore the world and the protest rallies that are out there all over it, is that there is no need for all or even most of the music people might play on a stage at a rally to stick to a particular message.  It's not what the vast majority of people there are expecting, or looking for.

When songs are really good and really on-message, this can absolutely be the most powerful moment in a protest rally.  But when songs are about other subjects, or about nothing in particular at all, they still serve a vital purpose as part of a protest rally, to sustain a sense of community and togetherness in between the speakers -- who are hopefully striving to do exactly the same thing, in a different medium.

4.  Having a band would require a bigger and better sound system, which we don't have or can't afford to rent.

A chronic problem with protest rallies in most of the US for decades has been bad sound systems operated by people who don't have a very deep understanding of how they work best.  This happens when the political activist scene is chronically disconnected from the music scene.  

If you're involved with putting on a protest rally and you don't have access to a good sound system, it's almost certainly because you don't know enough musicians.  Almost certainly, if you live in a city, somewhere in that city there are many different musicians who own sound systems that are better than anything you've seen at a protest in your lifetime, if you're young.  Some of these musicians would love to support the cause with their music and with their sound systems, if someone asks them to.

5.  There's a band we'd like to have play, and they can bring their own sound system for the rally, but they don't want to just play for ten minutes.

Of course a lot of work goes into planning a rally, effectively getting the word out about it, setting up the stage if you have one, and a lot of other things that go into it.  Most musicians probably don't want to over-emphasize the amount of work that goes into getting the drum set into the van and transporting all the necessary gear to the rally site and setting everything up there, but it is a lot of work, and may involve renting a vehicle and other expenses.

What often clinches it as far as musicians doing all this work are concerned is the idea that they're doing it all just so they can play a 10-minute set following 2 hours of speakers.  They know, viscerally, that this is a miserable program, people will be fleeing the rally long before they do their set, and that it would only make sense for them to be given more time, and for there to be more music in the program.  Seeing the plan, they say they want to play for more time, or skip it.

They may thus come off to some as prima donnas driven by narcissism, but in all likelihood that is not the case at all, and what would make a lot more sense, rather than not having them play, is having them play for longer.

6.  This protest is about issues, not about famous people or cults of personality.

Some people worry about musicians that may have a following distracting people from the important issues at hand.  Much more likely is they'll help get a bigger crowd, without distracting from anything, and they'll be a good reason why some people want to come back to the next rally.

This is likely going to be the case whether you have a famous musician on the stage or a little-known local one who is good.  Good musicians naturally will aim to sustain the mood that's present, and lift spirits in some way.  Which is a good thing, because most famous musicians won't actually want to sing at your rally, except for the rare few who regularly take strong stances on different issues.

Most successful musicians tend to want to avoid identifying themselves with a group or perspective that may be loved by half the society and hated by the other half.  This is a bad marketing strategy, so you may find that even if you want to have a rock star join your protest, you won't get one.  But you will find lots of good musicians out there who aren't stars who will be happy to play and help you build the movement by doing so.

7.  We'd like to have a band at the rally, but the only ones offering to play for free are made up entirely of white men.

Protest organizers these days more than ever are looking for a diverse spectrum of people to be on the stage at their rallies.  Where I live, in Portland, Oregon, many groups have long had a policy that means that it's very rare that anyone speaking at a rally is white, unless they can lay claim to some form of marginalized status, like they're Jewish, trans, etc.

Although seeking to have a diverse array of people represented on the stage makes sense for so many good reasons, when you take things to such extremes as not having white speakers or musicians on the stage in a white-majority city, especially if the movement you may be involved with is already overwhelmingly involving white participants, you are really shooting yourself in the foot with such policies.

There are big historical reasons why the vast majority of successful rock bands throughout the history of what the music industry calls rock & roll have been made up entirely of white men.  This was, and often still is, the policy of the music industry.  R&B is for Black musicians.  Rock & roll is for white ones.  This is how the industry created its racially-categorized music genres.

The damage this kind of industry practice has done to society and to the many musical cultures within it would be impossible to quantify.  But we're not going to make it all go away by pretending it's different than it is.  For a whole variety of socioeconomic reasons, if you want to have more diversity on the stage, this often requires more resources.  Otherwise you may be stuck with the volunteers coming your way being overwhelmingly white.

Here it may be worth noting that white people are also a majority of the country's population, and not a group you want to ignore if you want to have a successful social movement.  It really is OK to have some white people on the stage now and then -- good, even.

8.  We can't have a whole band at our protest.  We were, however, considering having a solo act, but decided against it, because almost all the solo acts offering to play at the protest were white, and therefore don't represent the diversity we would like our movement to project.

As with the racialization of rock & roll by the music industry long ago, the ranks of what the industry came to call "folk" music as well as bluegrass was designed to be a white phenomenon, for the most part.  The Black roots of bluegrass and Appalachian music generally have been largely erased from the collective memory, and now forms of music still deeply loved in so many parts of the country and the world are perceived by some as being at least a vaguely racist form of music.

With socioeconomics being as they are, with institutional, multi-generational forms of racism endemic in society, and with an overtly racist music industry pushing a segregationist agenda for so much of the twentieth century, it is no wonder that the powers that be have had some success in their project of racializing different forms of music in the popular consciousness.

However, even if most people volunteering to play at your event who are solo performers may be white people with guitars, if they're good, and if other good performers aren't coming forward, you need someone to serve the vital purpose music has to offer, and there are plenty of highly competent white musicians who can fill that role -- and should, especially if you can't find other ones you'd prefer.  Err on the side of yes to music, not no.

9.  We wanted to have music at our protest, but the only people interested in performing represented only one kind of musical tradition.  Folk songs make some people cringe, while other people don't have a taste for hiphop, or they think punk rock is just noise, so it's safer just not to have any live performers.

While it can be very good to be considerate of audiences, and maybe not have a really loud, sweary hardcore band playing for the preschoolers, if the musicians are good, most people won't be offended by their musical style.  They'll appreciate it, and they'll appreciate a program that includes different musical styles.  Whether they love all the music, most people will appreciate your effort at inclusion, rather than be upset about your choices that they may have been less impressed by.

10.  We wanted to have live music, but there aren't any performers around here who have recorded songs about the issue we're protesting about.

It's relatively unusual for a songwriter or a band to have a song about a particular current event that may be happening.  Most musicians aren't really part of the overtly political musical traditions you can find on the margins of the folk, punk, hiphop, and rock scenes, among other places.  But if you give an artist or a band a little advance notice and they know what the protest is about, watch what happens.  If they're decent artists, and not just someone you chose at random, then in all likelihood they will come up with a set of songs they may have in their repertoire, or ones they may learn for the occasion, which fit the protest at hand.

11.  It didn't occur to us to have music at the rally.

This probably should be the first thing in the list of excuses, because it's probably the most common reason, in the modern age.

Most young people in the US today who have been to a protest have probably never been to one that involved live performers.  Many older folks haven't been to such a protest either.  Many of the folks at any given time who are getting involved with organizing protests have never done such a thing before, and only know what they know.  The vital importance of most of the program being music just isn't one of those things people tend to know, in contemporary US life.

12.  We were thinking of having a certain performer at the rally, but then we got word that they had written or said something offensive at some point.

Especially the chronically-online among us are often intensely sensitive to falling victim to a trolling campaign, or otherwise being forever canceled by cancelation campaigners, and we often are living cautious lives full of trepidation about this happening to us.  When we hear of someone who has some kind of blemish on their reputation, our first instinct is to pull back, disassociate, keep our distance, and not be tainted.

This tendency in modern society is completely self-destructive.  Our first assumption should be that people are good and the rumors are false.  The maxim of innocence until proven guilty was one of the best advances that civilization ever made, and where it is truly practiced, civilization is so much better for it.  When the maxim is instead to vet everyone for possible past misstatements before associating with them, you will never build a movement that is bigger than a clique.

We can look out for each other and try to protect each other from all harm, and that's a beautiful thing, but we can do it while also operating under the assumption that the rumor mill is churning, and most of what it is working with is nonsense that is best ignored, along with all of your social media accounts.

13.  We'd like to have music at the rally, but we're concerned about it being culturally appropriative.

The idea of cultural appropriation is more well-known now than it probably ever was, and in effect, it can serve to scare people off from associating with anyone who is playing music that we may consider to be from a culture other than the one the player is from, particularly when that musical tradition has a history of being a colonized one, while the musician playing it may be from a background more associated with the colonizers.

For the vast majority of musicians in the world I've ever known or heard about, the racialized system of music genres imposed by the segregationist music industry is something to be abhorred, along with the notion of some people getting recognized as authors of songs because they're white and represented by a record label, while the authors of the songs live and die in poverty.

While we can find this sort of arrangement repulsive, we can simultaneously recognize that especially when the music industry more or less leaves us alone, the natural state for musicians is to cross-pollinate.  If a musician who plays one kind of music is in a land where they play other kinds of music, musical cross-pollination will happen, and most every musician in the world understands this, and thinks it can be a really wonderful thing.

Through this kind of cross-pollination -- for example, African and Irish peoples living in the same hollers together in Appalachia was the genesis for what we today know of as bluegrass, Americana, or country music -- greatness abounds.  Without pretending that the whole process that led to the creation of these forms of music was OK, we can simultaneously see that this music belongs to everyone, and you don't need to be either white, Black, from the hollers of West Virginia, or from the skyscrapers of Manhattan, to equally embrace any of these forms of musical expression.

In conclusion:  more music may help build your movement, less music won't.  And no music will kill it off quickly.

Travelogue 4.2025: Random Reflections of a Wobbly Wobbly

I tend to write a few thousand words about whatever comes to mind at the end of one of my concert tours.  Sometimes it's all fairly cohe...