Good one Al, though undoubtedly painful to write. These same issues keep coming up, and these things keep needing to be said.

"...all Americans...need to watch what they say, watch what they do..."

Who said this again? And what was the context again?

Who said this again? And what was the context again?

Really Brian, if that one passing comment of Fleischer's is the worst example of the administration's crushing of dissent you've got to cite, then you're just making my case for me.

Ari was also referring to a Republican congressman from Louisiana (whose name escapes me) who said that anyone "with a dishtowel on his head" could expect a visit fromthe police. Ari was chiding both liberal loudmouths and jackasses from his own party. If that is the best example of the dark night of fascism which is descending upon America, I don't think we have much to worry about.

There's lots of free speech in this country; there's just a lack of people willing to use it, and a lack of media outlets willing to distribute it. As Eric Alterman points out in What Liberal Media?, there was more diversity of opinion on foreign policy in the Soviet media in the 1970s than there is in the U.S. mass media today.

And of course, the economically and politically vulnerable face growing restrictions on speech while the rest of us chat happily away.

NC,

I guess since Ari Fleischer was fired by Bush for his anti-liberty position, and Bill Maher was rewarded by ABC for his bravery in speaking an uncomfortable truth, my example was poorly chosen.

"Anti-liberty position"? Girl, please. And was that the "uncomfortable truth" that Maher apologised for?

I'm friends with Elvis's son Liam, and you have no idea how hard it is not to blog about this.

Just because EC is commonly regarded as one of the more intelligent rock musicians to come down the pike does not mean he is not prone to a)hysteria and b) stupidity. This "dangerous times" crap is hardly new - he's been obsessing about "fascists" since his first record. Take a listen to Armed Forces - half the songs pretty much assert that "they" are poised to overtake Western Civilization at any moment. As for another post referring to Alterman's comments re: Russia, let's ask EC how he enjoyed being detained and questioned in Moscow for several hours back during those good old days. Maybe EC would recognize those as "dangerous times".

sorry, it looks like sensorship to me.

out of one side of our mouth comes all of the stuff about "defending freedom", etc.

out of the other side comes the snarl telling people to shut the fuck up when they dare to say something against the president.

since when is the president a fucking king?

i posted a quote a while back from theodore roosevelt.

it applies here.

The President is not a king. Should Ari have said what he said? No, probably not, but there was no censorship. Maher's show was a ratings disaster to begin with, and when he said that the 19 hijackers were brave as compared to the American military, his ratings tanked even further. If there were a big enough market for that kind of talk, Maher would still be on the air on ABC. Ther is not, so he has been sent off to the gulags, oops, I mean HBO. The guy has a show on HBO, and yet that constitutes censorship? These are the dangerous times that EC is referring to? Spare me such nonsense

Al, I notice you leave off the word "fairly" from EC's remark to make it seem inflamatory and wrongheaded enough to warrant another rant about them sissy artists who think they're better than us. Saying that these are "fairly dangerous times in terms of freedom of speech" is hardly the full-on descent into the leftist paranoid fantasies you seem to be attributing to him.

I'm sure you can find (and no doubt have found) other celebrity liberals who confuse intolerance and boycotts for official censorship but I think Elvis is aware of the difference. Alas, a few Hollywood unfortunates have come out with such self-serving nonsense that it makes it hard for liberals to express any reservations about The Way Things Are without them being tarred with the same brush.

For the record, I haven't bought an Elvis Costello album since Get Happy came out twenty-odd years ago -- and I don't feel any liberal guilty about it....

I sympathize with Al's dilemma; I too am a big fan of Elvis' and met him briefly (along with Bacharach) following a show in DC--he was gracious and charming. But politically he's always been your standard Brit lefty; I remember a quote in the 80s to the effect that there was "no moral alternative" to voting Labour. That struck me as a very, well, foreign notion about politics then (it seems to be increasingly common today). So now, I'll wince, shake my head, and put on "Imperial Bedroom.."

censorship? no one's being gagged. people may be complaining about certain celebrities voicing their opinions, but it's always their freedom of speech to voice those complaints.

here


Given the recent article in the New York Times about the overwhelming and increasing influence of a couple of retailers (well, Wal-Mart mostly) on book, CD and DVD sales, and the recent moves by the FCC to increase media concentration, these are dangerous times for freedom of expression.

In Elvis' case, I can easily a scenario he's been through before playing out.

He's currently on Mercury which is part of Vivendi-Universal. When Mercury was part of PolyGram, and was sold to Universal, almost half of the roster got dropped or dumped into contractual limbo (never mind the third of the employees who got shit-canned, they were only people).

Vivendi is eager to sell Universal Music, which could easily mean any projects EC has in the pipeline may never see the light of day, and his options to go elsewhere could be put on hold for up to 7 years. Since he isn't a big seller, and quarterly performance is all the media congloms understand, I think he is right to speak out.

Since the US has slipped into a post-democratic corporate oligarchy, you could look to Argentina for an example of how a prosperous state goes to permanent war against terrorists, and wages war with other states while ignoring the domestic economy. (Which while I think about it is largely what "Shipbuilding" is about).

After all, the most efficient bullying is done by threat, not action.

Nigel [#12]-I did not leave out the "fairly". It's right there. I would not purposely misrepresent or misquote someone like that, certainly and especially not one of my personal heroes. Nor did I accuse him condescension (thinking himself "better than us"), nor of being a sissy.

Having not bought an Elvis album since Get Happy! means that you have missed out on most of his best work, and especially most of his more experimental and diverse work. I don't know that it is something about which to feel "guilty" but you're losing out.

THe ratings were good for PI. I didn't mention it when I wrote about a stop on his book tour, but he said it was a myth he was cancelled for ratings (it would be interesting if someone could dig up a comparison with what Jimmy Kimmel is drawing) and ABC made a profit on the show.

And Elvis is right. Yes, the Dixie Chicks are selling out concerts and still on the charts. But if Clear Channel and other radio stations had banned a newer act or even just not added one to their playlist, it would have had a far worse impact.

He is saying that we should defend the right to free speech. I don't see why you're spazzing about that rather uncontroversial statement.

1) EC peaked not much after Get Happy folks. Major recovery during KOA era but it's been pretty crappy since.

2) Corporate oligarchy? I count three major labels that have put out EC's music, one independent that bought one major's rights to reissue all his older stuff and now a second independent (albeit one distributed by a major) that is putting out a second set of reissues. The A & R guy that humped the Brodksy Quartet project up the corporate ogre would have to be a descendent of Adam Smith for Christ's sake. Much of the music I like is put out by non-major labels. Always been that way, always will. Nothing stopping EC from issuing his own records.

3) Folks, we're not losing artists or their freedom, we're gaining critics through this newfangled technology. Bravo I say.

1) EC peaked not much after Get Happy folks. Major recovery during KOA era but it's been pretty crappy since.

2) Corporate oligarchy? I count three major labels that have put out EC's music, one independent that bought one major's rights to reissue all his older stuff and now a second independent (albeit one distributed by a major) that is putting out a second set of reissues. The A & R guy that humped the Brodksy Quartet project up the corporate ogre would have to be a descendent of Adam Smith for Christ's sake. Much of the music I like is put out by non-major labels. Always been that way, always will. Nothing stopping EC from issuing his own records.

3) Folks, we're not losing artists or their freedom, we're gaining critics through this newfangled technology. Bravo I say.

Maybe Mr. Carruthers knows more about Elvis' business deals than I do, but I don't see the relevance. Clear Channel nor Wal Mart owe Elvis or anyone else space. There is no way that Elvis will be prevented from making a record for seven years. This is all a lot of nonsense.

Elvis was making like there are dark agents out to stifle people's free speech. There are not. If you are determined to commit career suicide by pissing people off, then do so- but don't let on like you're some poor victim.

Ari Fleischer made one passing questionable remark about Bill Maher. Wah!

In fairness, Elvis' remarks were way not the most egregious thing any celebrity has said. It's about middling stupid. It's just that I expect a little better out of Elvis than out of some mediocre twit like Sheryl Crow.

Actually, Ari Fleischer is a smug midiocre twit (like his boss) who has made many questionable remarks. That is just the one that got all the attention.

The music is what should matter. Or art or writing or acting. Having a poltical view shouldn't be career suicide.

People should be more tolerant of dissent so they don't boo the Dixie Chicks at the CMA or Chris Hedges at a graduation where he ventures beyond the usual platitudes (I literally fell asleep during the cookie cutter speech by former CBS news president Richard Salant at mine). They certainly have every right to boo, but we're supposed to counter views we don't agree with with arguments not just noise.

If Clint is smart enough to realize as Kevin Turan writes he was making "a film that allows even an actor as exceptional as Sean Penn to give a landmark performance, one guaranteed to make the hairs stand up on the back of your neck."

I wouldn't vote for Clint for mayor of Carmel, but I do know he's made some great films both as an actor and as a director. And the rest of the cast of Mystic River - Tim Robbins, Kevin Bacon, Laurence Fishburne, Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney - is probably about as politically opposite from his as I am.

1) Do you mean burn me or burn EC? The WB era pretty much sucked in my opinion. Look, EC set the bar with his first half-dozen, damn near flawless records in my opinion. Post Imperial Bedroom, EC has produced only three truly worthwhile and memorable records (King of America, Blood & Chocolate and his last one).

2) I guess I don't understand the music industry as well as Mr. Carruthers but it would seem that EC must have "sold" his art to these companies at some point. How do you know he didn't neglect to buy them back? He continues to draw royalties from them. Do you think he could do better at distributing his own product than the companies he has chosen? My point is that EC or anyone else for that matter can produce music and distribute it themselves without a major media conglomerate or for that matter a tiny hipster label. If they don't move enough units to excite Wal-Mart, who cares?

3) I really have no idea what the third point means. My point was that the internet helps spread information, like the fact that some music / art fans don't always appreciate the grandstanding of their favorite artists. It's just my opinion, not an offical state communique from 1930's Berlin chief.

While in a perfect world, the graduates of Rockford College would have engaged in a debate with Chris Hedges, and come to an agreement to a disagree, he was he one with a microphone, he was the one with a captive audience, and he chose to use the occasion to set forth his anit-war views. The students did not have a microphone, and they did not have a captive audience in Mr. Hedges, so they booed him and some walked out. They expressed their opinion in the onlyway available to him. I would guess that some expressed their approval of Mr. Hedges' views by applauding. The only reason this is a story is that some people, like Mr. Hedges, believe that criticism and disagreement equal censorship. Inother words, Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee.

The "retarded copyright laws" can be used to protect artists and their estates. They own the rights to their music, books, films, whatever, and the copyrights don't expire until long after their deaths, giving their heirs something of value for their estate. Of course, this is assuming that those artists have not sold those copyrights to someone else. Elvis can in fact do "dick" with his recordings. Do record companies screw musicians? Yes, but that has nothing to do with the copyright laws. To say that the "retarded copyright laws" have made Elvis Costello a "peon" is, well, its retarded.

What I find surprising is that Elvis made those comments, and I presume that those in attendance endorsed those comments with their applause, and yet the jackbooted thugs failed to kick down the doors and take them all away to the gulag. Either the fascist police state was able to suppress that part of the story, or we are dealing with some incompetent fascists.

A lot of you seem to be unaware that when a performer signs with a major, they are selling their ownership of their recordings in exchange for a recoupable advance (don't know what "recoupable" means? Then you, too could have a record contract) and royalties. The majors have stifled numerous musicians just out of sheer spite, and whenever the ownership of the conglom changes, the first thing is to kill the projects of the previous regieme.

As for complete control, the shadow oligarchy prefers to be more subtle, ruling by distraction and a sock stuffed in their crotch.

People sign with recording companies because that's what's available. The recording companies theoretically pay them royalties, but then charge the artists out of royalties for promotion. Many artists get nothing back from from the sales and make all of their money out of performance. Roger McGuinn of the Byrds recently said that he'd never made any money off sales. Janis Ian recently wrote that she'd never received a royalty statement from the record company that didn't say she owed them money.

If radio stations refuse to play an artist's work, that artist will suffer from lack of promotion and be unable to sell tickets to performances. Ultimately, that is economic censorship. It may not be by the government, but in effect it is the same thing. If we are afraid to speak out because we will lose our livilhood, then yes, it stifles free speech.

Here's the point Avedon and Mr. Carruthers seem to be missing: THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU AN ARTISTIC VENUE. This is of course a corollary of the common truism that THE WORLD DOES NOT OWE YOU A LIVING.

Warner Brothers is NOT stifling your free speech nor censoring you in any way by NOT signing you to a record contract. They do NOT OWE you a contract. If they do not think you are a viable act that they can turn a profit on, then to the curb with ya. That some artists have bad contracts with the labels does not constitute a "danger" to our free speech.

None of this justifies Elvis speaking as if he were being stifled. The "danger" is pretty much all in his fevered creative imagination.

By the way, if you can make them a buck, the labels don't give a rat's ass what you say. They eagerly promoted the Clash, which is about as far out into leftist land as you can get. Rage Against the Machine didn't seem to have trouble getting major corporate promotion. Gangster rap and Tracy Chapman "Talking 'Bout a Revolution" and Public Enemy- all published and eagerly promoted by major labels.

One last time. No musician has to sign with a major record label to conceive / produce / distribute their music. They enter into a business arrangement with someone or something (major, indie, bedroom, whatever) that they assume will do a better job with the latter two functions than they could do themselves. If they choose to align themselves with a corporation and not retain counsel to protect their rights / intellectual property, IT'S THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT.

What I find wanting is what EC actually said, which is that free speech is under assualt, and that only by defending it can it be maintained.

Saying he should just shut up only reinforces the point. Secondly, anybody who thinks a free and open market exists in the USA is a fool, plain and simple, or an evil troll.

Simply put, a handfull of media comapanies controll the media in the States. Secondly, the political process is a function of a corporate oligarchy. It's been that way for 20 years, and only gets worse.

The fact right wing fans are pissed off by what Elvis says only goes to prove his point that the US is slipping into fascism.

A few months back, writers and journalists in Cuba were imprisoned for counter-revolutionary activity. They asked for a say in running their country, asked for a meaningful vote, aksed to be able to criticize Castro and the communist leadership. Some of them were sent up the river for 28 years.

In the United States, Bill Maher lost his TV show, but quickly got another, and the Dixie Chicks pissed off a significant portion of their fan base by criticising the president during a time of war, but still managed to sell out a nationwide tour. President Bush did not fire Bill Maher, nor did President Bush burn Dixie Chick discs on the South Lawn of the White House.

Pop Quiz: Which country is a repressive totalitarian government?

I never said Elvis should shut up. I am critical of his comments, but he can say whatever the hell he pleases. However, when he talks such stupid nonsense, I, and it appears a few others, will call him out on it. Criticism does not equal censorship.

Isn't Elvis a "wage slave" for one of those handful of companies which control the media in this country? Hasn't Elvis switched record companies a few times? Ok, the first time around, he was young, and excited and maybe he gave away the rights to his music. But the second and third times he signed contracts, he was a cagey veteran who should have known better. At least he should have had his own lawyer in the room to keep his copyrights. Fool him once, shame on the record comapnies; Fool him twice and/or thrice, shame on Elvis Costello.

As I believe that the US has free and open markets, at least in relation to anyplace I am aware of, I am trying to decide whether I am a fool or an evil troll. Being a fool would be nice in an ignorance is bliss sort of way, but being an evil troll would be cool because I could hide under a bridge and demand tribute before I let anyone pass over it. Jim, I am going with evil troll on this one.

A few months back, many British musicians and writers criticized their government's plans to go to war in Iraq. They received a respectful hearing in the media, and many were interviewed on the BBC and other networks, which gave full airing to both sides of the issue.

In the United States, celebrities who criticized the war endured an unending campaign of defamation. One group, the Dixie Chicks, was subject to a phoney "boycott" which turns out to have been initiated by the Republican National Committee. (http://www.counterpunch.org/dixie05172003.html)

Although average Americans were very willing to listen to such antiwar views, they didn't have the opportunity to do so because CNN, Fox and the other networks allowed only prowar and centrist voices to be heard. America's democratic institutions were bypassed by the media oligarchy and its cheering section, the right wing hate talkers (virtually all of whom work for the oligarchy).

Pop Quiz: Of Britain and the U.S., which showed during the war that it has become little more than a banana republic?

I'm guessing a lot of people here would have similarly defended the blacklists of the 1950s, since the compilation and dissemination of those lists involved only private, voluntary exchanges, not coercion by the government.

Again, Elvis didn't say he was being stifled. He didn't even complain about his record contracts. He just said freedom of speech is something we should defend. That we should fight to defend our freedom is something that was said in thoursands of ceremonies today.

Even the Wall Street Journal editorial page said:

The Rockford Fouls

Conservatives, like most Americans, rightly considered it a violation of free speech when Caspar Weinberger, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Barbara Bush were hassled while speaking on campus. The affront is no less simply because the same thing happened last weekend to New York Times reporter and antiwar activist [actually he wrote an anti-war book based on his experiece covering many wars - I'm not aware of any protests he's taken part in] Chris Hedges.

While giving the commencement address at Rockford College, in Rockford, Illinois, Mr. Hedges was booed, heckled and had his microphone turned off twice. The school's president tried to calm the crowd but in the end the reporter had to cut his speech short. Much of the American right has since clucked in unbecoming satisfaction...But simply because a speaker is foolish doesn't mean he deserves to be silenced. Mr. Hedges was after all invited, and colleges have a special obligation to protect civil discourse...

Mark me down as troll as well. I honestly thought only people well to the right of me politically could be so paranoid. If my calling out EC on overblown hyperbole is an example of the US sliding into fascism, my comments when I first heard the Brodsky Quartet project would have placed us on the path to theocracy.

Sean, for somebody who is agreeing with me on my point of criticism in this post, you're managing to get on my last nerve with now repeated slanders against Elvis' later work. The Brodsky Quartet album is The Juliet Letters, and it is an exceptionally good piece of work. I can see that I will have to write some proper analysis and praise for this classic. Sorry if it doesn't have guitars and drums crashing away. Nonetheless, it kicks ass.

Monkey with me anymore on this, and this blog will turn ALL ELVIS, ALL THE TIME. You think I won't?

Al,

I suspect we would disagree about most of EC's later period works but that's OK. Isn't that the point of the original blog -that no one's right to free speech is really being impinged, especially the ones with the microphones and guest spots hosting David Letterman.

I'm trying to convey to Mr. Carruthers that I felt free to criticize EC long before we slipped into a "post democratic corporate oligarchy", let alone Mr. Ashcroft's stormtroopers asked me to.

For the record, I don't need crashing drums and guitars to enjoy EC's music. My all time-favorite EC performance was a solo show he did with T-Bone Burnett as support at Avery Fisher Hall in Lincoln Center back in 1984. I saw him later that year in concert with the Attractions humping their pretty lame "Goodbye Cruel World" album. There was no comparison.

I have to somewhat give you the point if you argue against Goodbye Cruel World. That was one of his couple of lesser albums, granted. Yet even that had "Inch by Inch" among other groovy items.

It was not perhaps fully up to the extraordinarily high standards of Elvis Costello, but if, say, Wilco came up with this, it would be hailed as a masterpiece. It certainly has considerably better songs than the Foxtrot Tango thing.

I haven't heard enough of The Juliet Letters to make a full comparison to Wilco's YHF. I like Wilco very much and I think that YHF is a good but ridiculously over-rated record.

I would like to go on the record that the whole melodrama, er make that DVD docudrama, concerning the creation of YHF was largely a brilliant ploy by the Warner Brothers accounting department to shift assets among the various ledgers.

Let me be clear regarding Elvis vs Wilco: The relatively mediocre Goodbye Cruel World album definitely rates higher than Wilco on the basis of songs. The Juliet Letters album, on the other hand, is a fairly highly rated album even within the Elvis catalog. It's exponentially better than the Wilco. I wouldn't trade you even "This Offer Is Unrepeatable" for the entire Wilco catalog

I'm honestly not enough of a Wilco fan to defend them. Also, Tweedy's shtick tends to be far more annoying than EC's. On the other hand, Wilco gave me a free EP last week and that counts for something.

I have to ask: would you put The Juliet Letters in EC's top 5? Top 10?.

I have to weigh in with Sean H. (not a blood relation)on the Juliet Letters. It is pretty damn near unlisteneable in my opinion, and please don't get me started on the whole Bachrach fiasco. I also don't need crashing drums and guitars to enjoy Elvis. He can sit and pluck away at the piano and I will enjoy it, as long as the songs are top notch.

I was also at that Avery Fisher Hall show, and it was magnificent. Touring later with the Attractions for GCW, it seemed that Elvis just didn't give a crap anymore, although I saw him on Broadway after B&C came out, both with the Attractions and the Confederates, and he seemed to have his schwerve back. I have seen him a few times in the past 15 years, but could not give you the details of any of the concerts simply because none of them stand out in my memory, and I have not used controlled substances at a concert for years.

I could try to draw some parallels between his mushy headed thinking and what I see as his artistic decline, but I am too tired. I had a tough day as an evil troll.

Son Volt [comment #32] should stop with his McCarthyite tactics. Being called a McCarthyite has become one of the worst accusations you can have thrown at you in public debate. If you are a McCarthyite, then you are considered to be a fascist demagogue. You suppress free speech. You're a definitively bad apple.

Thus, being accused of McCarthyism means that you are a no-goodnik outside of the moral approval of any decent citizen. You need not, indeed SHOULD not give consideration to any arguments by a McCarthyite. You might as well call someone a Nazi. It wouldn't be considered that much worse. Calling someone a "McCarthyite" is to demonize them and de-legitimize them as a person, to (try to) bludgeon them into submission with name calling.

Saying that Elvis was talking some foolishness and he shouldn't talk stupid does not constitute McCarthyism- not in terms of what the term now means in common parlance, nor even in the more limited terms of the actual practice.

Common citizens criticizing Elvis or the dreaded Dixie Chicks is categorically different than any kind of action undertaken by the government. Fans boycotting your product (the worst case scenario here) is not at all the same thing as the fear of being drug in front of Congress and implicitly or explicitly threatened with criminal prosecution.

Hey Son Volt, you think there's anything to my Wilco theory?

Hey Son Volt, when boycotts were organized against Dr. Laura and her show was forced off the air, did that constitute McCarthyism? Are boycotts, cosumer actions, and criticism of the speech of others always McCarthyism, or only when you have sympathy for the artists and/or companies being boycotted?

For the record, I think Dr. Laura is a twit and I have heard maybe a full hour of her radio show, and never saw the tv show, but my question still stands.

I'm not big on boycotts, but the difference is that the Dr. Laura boycott was initiated by groups not affiliated with the government or the media oligarchy. As the link I cited above notes, the Dixie Chicks boycott was started and organized by the Republican National Committee and abetted by the Clear Channels, who have business before the Bush Administration and are eager to please it.

This type of intimidation is not an example of McCarthyism; it's an example of statist capitalism, in which the oligarchic corporations and the government do each other's bidding. State Capitalism is what existed in Brazil in the 1960s, and it's what exists in the United States today. A shame, really. The U.S. used to be a nice country.

Elvis Costello is a more advanced mind and is right.
Copyright laws are not adequate to this world global communication.
Multinationals are gaining more millions at coast of artists and buyers.