Should Meat Loaf play at Donald Trump's Inauguration Ceremony?
 

This could be a big opportunity for Meat Loaf to get massive exposure around the world.

The vast amount of showbiz stars appear to be very negative to Trumps election success. Meat on the otherhand remained neutral in public. Meat has however been a big supporter of the Republican party in the past and coming from Texas is likely to be a Republican I suspect.

With Trump appearing to be desperate for a big name to perform should Meat Loaf offer his services?!

No.

What makes you think he is desperate?

I doubt he is.
Trump tweeted this before Christmas:
This "look we have a performing monkey doing some tricks on in a minute so vote for us / like us" approach was Obama/Hillary. Yesterday's news.

I don't believe there is a US law that states a celeb performance is needed at the inauguration.

Perhaps have some military marching bands perform some patriotic music, but celebs such as Meat on at the inauguration? No. It wouldn't help Trump and it wouldn't help Meat.

Meat doesn't need "a big opportunity" .. he IS a household name, may well have drawn a line under his touring career .. yet were he to announce one again would sell out venues .. and was very wise to refrain from comment during this US election. Your suspicions are irrelevant; Meat has voted both Democrat and Republican in the past, and who he votes for is up to him and no-one else's business. He has never been a "big supporter" publicly of any party; his one small foray into the arena when he appeared at one Romney rally in the previous election campaign brought him a tirade of rude abuse from some of his fans which upset him greatly.

You don't have to support the President to appear at an inauguration .. however this time it has starkly divided a nation, and I am not in the least surprised that the vast majority of artists don't want to touch it with a bargepole, because of the effect it would have on their fans .. people are not very good at allowing their idols to have opinions that differ to theirs.

So NO .. as I suspect you already expected. You have been on here long enough to know what happened in 2012, so I can only surmise at your reasons for starting this thread :!:

There is no need to get so defensive Caryl!

Meat may actually no longer be a household name to the younger generations in the US. Recent US tours have been performed at relatively small venues unlike the arena shows in the UK.

I am just suggesting if his health allows this will give him some publicity to the worldwide market.

I do see your point to a degree, but i think Caryl stated some very good points.
And i cant see people going out to buy Meat Loaf albums because he sang a song on that disturbed individuals big night.

Thank you ;) Pointing out what should be obvious is hardly defensive.

Meat is hardly at a point in his career where he has particular need to attract "younger generations in the US" .. and certainly doesn't imo need to grasp this particular poisoned chalice

The audience is likely to be in the hundreds of millions if not topping a billion so maybe worth some consideration?

Caryl I find your tone towards me quite patronising. We're not living in North Korea people can have different opinions.

Im not getting involved between you and Caryl, if you feel she is doing this? Fair enough but i dont see it myself.
Again i understand what you are pointing out, but i dont see how it would help Meat? Could he plug the album?

No. I have no problem with Trump or with anyone that wants to perform at the inauguration, good for them.

But, Meat's voice needs no where near that level of scrutiny. If the AFL debacle was bad, this would be that times 100, the live voice just is not up to par anymore.

Yep fair point Mark. As much as we all love Meat we have to be honest and say his voice has been in decline for 15 years.

If he mimed like he has done on several TV shows he would get criticism for that as well.

Unfortunately and I really hate to admit it but I do think you indeed revealed the elephant in the room.

When all the cool kids wouldn't come to my party, I said I never would have invited them anyway.

I disagree for the reasons I have given

Really? Sorry you choose to feel that way. You asked the question in the first place. I merely expressed my opinion. That it is frequently different to yours should by now be no surprise, and I do so precisely because we are not in N Korea, and I am entitled to hold it

Just as I do not agree that Meat's voice has been on the decline for 15 years. I have attended many concerts where he has been on superb form during that time.

I would agree that his physical fitness, given he is still recovering from back surgery, would be another reason to preclude his attending .. but stand by the fact that it would be a poisoned chalice to take anyway on this occasion.

The answer is if Meat wants to and was feeling up to it. As far as I know the band is not doing anything Meat Loaf related at the moment. I also feel like that if Meat did this and no matter how good it was he would get nothing but scorn for doing it from the media and a lot of fans. Plus Jim would probably faint at the idea of his songs being done.

Typically in the US it is considered fine for people in the performing industry to appear for one party's candidates, yet career suicide to appear for the other party. I assume this is because the performer's politics lean that direction and certainly their bosses must approve or they wouldn't risk it.

The way the world is today - much due to the internet- people are so venomous about any little issue that if I were a performer I would be totally apolitical in public.

I'm amazed that you think Meat's voice has not detoriated Caryl? If you listened to some of Meat's performances in the 80's, 90's on youtube you will see his incredible power he use to have in his live vocals. I think even Meat has admitted his vocals aren't what they once were.

Meat has chosen to not publicly speak about his politics.. why would we need to speculate.

That is Meats business.

I thought Bocceli was going to perform?

The question..................

And the answer........................................

Didn't need us at all then

He isn't, exactly for the reasons which Loaferman pointed to.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/new...uch-heat-fans/

Although I don't think any celeb needs to perform at this event like I said, a bunch of whining snowflaky assholes starting a hashtag #boycottbocelli against an amazing singer who has battled blindness and done tons of charitable work throughout his life is very sad and completely pathetic.

Yes even the "cool" kids are capable of bullying, in fact I would argue they do it more than the uncool kids.

Maybe the uncool kids are really the cool ones....

Meat should, the audience would be huge.

And even if it sucks, hell overshadow Trump. Id rather have Meat on the news good or bad. No way wed treat him like Australia did.

And how did many of you treat him when he appeared at Romney's rally?

Its not happening anyway, so who cares?

You said "his voice has been in decline for 15 years." I disagreed. I don't need to listen on YT; I attended many of Meat's performances in the 80s and 90s .. and almost all tours since then. Storytellers, Night of the Proms, Having Fun, CHSIB (if you missed the first show after his WPWS surgery, you missed an amazing vocal performance), even Hair of the Dog tours were great. His voice began to show weakness as the vocal cyst developed (although he was still magnificent at the RAH) .. and when it healed he came back strongly in Casa de Carne and Hang Cool. Has his voice altered? Yes, of course; it would be unreasonable to expect it to remain constantly the same over 40 years. But to suggest it has been "in decline for 15 years" is not something I agree with .. and Last at Bat 3 years ago was superb, and showed just how much power and strength he still had.

You know what they say..... "there is no such thing as bad publicity"

The voice thing has been i guess an ongoing talking point for years now.
Hes almost 70 people, of course its changed. Lost power? No, range and delivery? Maybe. But i honestly think its that the songs are so difficult to sing, and they require so much. Meat is still a good singer, is he still great? I dont know. But without question one of the greatest live performers in history

Don't get me wrong Caryl I go to every Meat tour and love his performances and of course would go to another show if there was to be one. I just think we have to be realistic to say his vocals aren't what they once were.

Yep I agree with all of this.

Did anyone who appeared for Mr. Obama receive a "backlash"? Yet if any even think about appearing for Mr. Trump the haters come out of the woodwork seeking blood.
As said already, with Meat it isn't going to happen so kind of a moot issue.

No. Not just no but hell no.

Performers have appeared at inauguration events for a long time, without backlash. Meat has appeared for both Republican and Democrat inaugurations in the past with none; it's always been viewed as a professional paid engagement which does not signify any particular level of personal support. This time it's different though .. the country (even the world) far more divided .. but as you say .. a moot issue. I would have thought by now he'd have long been asked (he was on CA, so could hardly be described as off Trump's radar) and in that case declined .. any acceptance from anyone vaguely well known would surely be loudly heralded by the Trump team.

Why is this even a conversation?

I have a pot of soup on that I'm going to go stir soon and eat. No Joke. But I find this thread relate-able.

No, I don't think it's a good idea, also because it'll just be like last time with that other guy, and I remember that. Gawd no. History has repeated itself enough already for me too.

That wasnt regally huge ratings like AFL was or this would be

Although not a Trump fan myself I do recognise that he was democratically elected.

It is easy to look in from the outside thousands of miles away, however everybody's economic and social situation is different.

I would never patronise the American public and make out they are crazy for electing Trump. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion.

With this in mind the "silent majority" that elected Trump would probably love to see a southern boy from Texas like Meat perform!

Anything Meat would do would be better than what we witnessed with Miriah

YOU SING EVEN IF THERES PRE RECORDED VOCALS. take a page from Meat

Still of the opinion that the 'Guilty Pleasures' DVD should have marked the official end of his live work -- so it's a 'No' from me ....

With the benefit of hindsight there should have been a DVD of the Last At Bat tour. Meat was much better than on Guilty Pleasure. :shrug:

The problem with that DVD is that it did not reflect his touring since 2010. The Hang Cool Tour sounded great, Meat was amazing. Then the AFL happened, and IMO ~~~~ed with his head. Plus his vocal chord issue, which may or may not have been caused by that extreme stress.

HOnestly, I want a DVD of the Hang Cool Tour. Meat sounded phenomenal. His high end was still very much intact. I'm not sure i'd want a DVD of Last At Bat. I've listened to every bootleg, and Meat sounded really great on his low register, and emotionally was all there, but by that time, his highest notes were being supported by small bits of backing track (Eg. The end of bat), and there was a noticeable weakening that had started around the AFL issue. I've said it before, but I don't think Meat's performances have been the same since then...Not that they're "Bad", just that he might have really hurt his voice forcing himself through those shows with his bleeding vocal chord and all that stress.

The hang cool tour shows I saw in January of 2011, unfortunately I got no video because they were so good. Meat acted like he was 40 years old again, stalked the stage, ran, sang his ~~~~ing ass off. I want to re-live that. That was Meat Loaf in a late stage renaissance.

As if Charlotte Church would have been asked to sing at the inauguration.

I don't think so!

I could imagine Katherine Jenkins would be asked but anyone of any lesser celeb status seems totally unlikely. You can find better singers than Charlotte Church who don't carry a constant political agenda.

Several of these celeb / political singers seem to be digging themselves a career ending grave trying to use the Trump thing ("No I will not perform for a 'tyrant'") as a platform to stay relevant.

Such nonsense.

Agreed. These "celebrities" want to tell us how to live our lives while they make speeches obviously looking down their noses at us poor slobs who would only have MMA fights to watch if it wasn't for them while they rake in huge money. It is an insult to their audiences and it is going to hurt them, but lucky for them they already got theirs.

Meat needs to just concentrate on feeling well again. If he wants to act again he would need to stay away anyhow because the reprisals from the production people would be a thing because people like them are that petty. They talk accepting everyone but obviously it is gross hypocrisy.

Anyone know the demographics of Meryl Streep's neighborhood not counting the help?

No, Trump is a moron IMO, and he doesn't need to be associated with his circus

Good grief NO!!!

Yeah..... right..... somehow I doubt that.

TRUMP GOT.....

R. KELLY.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHALOLOLOLOLOL

Birds of a feather, I guess.

*mutters something about golden showers and runs out of the chat room*

In the interest of accuracy, that claim originated on 4 Chan as a troll. The "legitimate" news media got had.
http://imgur.com/euJS87B

The loony liberal media happily spreads this tosh but never thoroughly questioned Hillary on the fact she surrounded herself by total creeps and dangerously incompetent people such as Anthony Weiner, Huma Abedin, John Podesta (who used Gmail for all his work emails and couldn't even use a good password on there or his Twitter account) and then there's her husband Bill Clinton.

They all tagged along till the Hillary ship rightfully sank.

http://media.mlxxfc.net/knockknock.jpg

This was an epic troll such as legends are made of. Amazing how many supposedly "credible" people totally fell for it. Believing the mainstream media doesn't report "fake news" is amazing. I'm still glad Meat stayed away for his health (doubt he was asked formally).

Indeed.
Going by what Meat wrote on Facebook recently, having had spinal fusion, he wouldn't be able to do this regardless.

But even if he were physically fit, I'd hate to see him being torn down by the media and its followers based on what they would see as association and agreement of each and every single one of Trump's words, statements and policies rather than just a song performance at a celebration.

Regarding the fake news thing, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the stuff is simply released by Trump's associates themselves to show how stupid the media now are and to perhaps incentivise them to sort themselves out.

CNN is just trash now. I used to think Fox News was propaganda, but it is clearly the other way around now.

Fox News: "TRUMP PRESS CONFERENCE
Announces plan to hand control
of business empire to his sons; names Veterans Affairs nominee"

CNN "I think it was Russia"

Which headline matters to the American people? The one informing people what happened (ie press conference) and a probable change in policy for a large group of people (veterans affairs nominee) or the one trying to stir up shit with a foreign country.
I have websites that were hacked by what appeared to be Russian hackers too (attempts). That doesn't mean that I think all Russians are bad people or that Vladimir Putin wants to take down my tiny empire. Come on now CNN!

Pathetic. Rightfully silenced during the press conference. CNN deserve to have their White House credentials taken away.

A news organisation that happily reposts fake articles coming from a click bait organisation or just runs with out of context propaganda is not a news organisation imo.
The fact that comments have been disabled on CNN shows also there is no room for criticism within their organisation. Dangerous and stupid. I do hope they can reform but I doubt it.

He won't play

NO!

Yeah, except there isn't much evidence that 4chan perpetrated the troll, either, except for 4chan saying they did. Supposedly, those documents had been circulating for months, allowing for the possibility that someone came across them and posted as such on 4chan, as opposed to the other way around.

What really matters is what didn't happen, in that he didn't answer the question, which was whether anyone from his organization had any dealings with the Russians prior to the election. Instead, he shut down one reporter (laughable for him to call anyone "rude"), and deflected when asked a similar question by a different reporter. If he had any guts and/or nothing to hide, he would have answered the question.

No, what's pathetic is the way he spinelessly labelled CNN as "fake news" (social media buzzword of the day) to avoid answering a serious allegation. He's going to need to come up with a new strategy going forward, because he's not going to keep getting away with it. This scandal is just getting started, and he's not even in office yet.

I disagree with the notion that he doesn't have guts. I find it quite a weak argument. He could have just retired with his billions in the bank and avoided all this so called outrage. I personally think that takes far less guts than what he is doing now. I believe Meat Loaf when he calls Trump a smart guy. If Trump had very dodgy dealings to hide beyond his cheeky mouth I doubt he would have run for presidency. Hillary was inside the political sphere for decades and consumed by it and couldn't do anything else. Julian Assange's assessment of her was very interesting to hear.

CNN and all the American intelligence agencies have been made into political footballs over the last few decades. The liberals pretty much owned them for a long time. I think this is now going to change. And rightfully so I would say. This is simply a last ditch attempt by the liberal establishment (in collusion with Ted Turner's news network and indeed the intelligence agencies) at overturning the inevitable. You only have to look at the long list of things that have been tried to see it is part of... indeed a list. Pussygate, Russia collusion, Russia hacking, Jill Stein recount bollox only in narrow states that Trump won (even though she was initially favouring Trump over Hillary), calling the electors to go against Trump, Meryl Streep shite, final bizarre accusations and inevitable protests on inauguration day. Imagine if all that wasted energy had been put to some good use like people take some healthy dance lessons or trying to play an instrument or whatever.

In all honestly, what is the value to that? Ted Bundy was a very smart person, so was that German guy who started WW2. Smart is not the issue. What you do with that intelligence is what matters. And Trump, as far as I looked into matters, has used his smartness to get out of lawsuits, going bankrupt enough times to be able to let others care for the misery while he could start over again, denying truth, lying to almost everyone around and getting away with it. That, I must admit is very clever. Indeed a very smart guy.

I am not going to respond any further on the issue but I want to point out following

Trump is, and only if you are ignorant you will deny, a narcissistic person. Everything Trump does has one purpose: Trump.

The only reason Trump went for the Presidency is the title PRESIDENT Trump.

I almost feel sorry for the people who believe otherwise. The coming months, years there might be a lot of skeletons coming out of his closet although Trump has a history of dodging the bullet by throwing money (and now that he is President I am sure many favours) around.

And I didn't expect Trump fans to be bigger whiners than the Clinton people. But wow. Trump has lied his entire campagn, insulted people of different backgrounds and all the Trump people did was applaude him for it. Now that it's the other way around (and I am curious what truth lies behind the accusations) the Trumpies are crying like little bitches because it is sooooo unnnn-faaaaiiirrrrrr.

Election is over and this is what the outcome is. Move on I say. But when I see people defend one of the most immoral persons on this globe for being handled immorally I just can shake my head.

Anyway, just to answer to OP. Meat Loaf is not able to persorm in any form for any event. So no. If he was healthy, should he do it? It is simple, it is his decision. And I hope it is based on what he believes in. I think Trump is a threat for society, equality and morality, so I would not perform. If you don't see it my way or don't have an issue with these points, knock yourself out.

Actually I'd say - and keep in mind I do so from down here among the 'people', the wallowing silly ignorant pigs of fandom - that the problem we actually have is entertainer's selling out the goodwill they've earned from fans for producing music and entertainment in order to take a pious and patronising position of using said goodwill, fame and name in order to suggest to people which way to vote. Musicians are musicians and we like them for their music. A person using these things - of which their fanbase is certainly a part of building - to endorse a candidate one year and then say 'my political beliefs are none of your business' the next seems a little disingenuous. If someone wants to keep their political beliefs private, seems to me drawing attention to them in a hugely public way might be an ill advised move.

That said, the McCain incident seems to have been largely and mercifully forgotten and I doubt Meat will appear at the inauguration unless for some reason he's grown tired of royalty checks and curious what a few thousand copies of Bat Out Of Hell would look like on a bonfire.

Australian sales of recent albums would seem to suggest otherwise.

He could have, but I think he enjoys running his empire too much for that. And honestly, I don't find anything wrong with that. But then he shouldn't have run for President, which, contrary to his megalomaniacal ravings, is a full-time job in itself. He's deluded if he actually thinks people are gullible enough (well, maybe some are) to believe that he won't discuss his business dealings with his sons. And, while it might be perfectly legal for him to simply put them in charge, it's not very ethical.

Personally, I don't think he ever really believed he could actually win, he just hated the Clintons that much.

As I said in my previous post, this is not going to just go away, and he's not going to get very far by constantly attacking the media, however right or wrong they might be.

Adje, I think your entire post was well-said, but especially this. Even if someone agrees with his policies, I don't understand how people can deny that his behavior isn't normal. His presidency is bound to implode at some point, I just hope too much damage isn't done before then.

I know this isn't exactly the same thing you're referring to, but in general terms, do you think artists shouldn't speak out (including through their music) when they perceive injustice, just because some portion of their fanbase won't agree? Music in particular, IMO, can be an effective form of protest. I think it's a slippery slope to try to silence artists from speaking out.

The point is the media does not care about that fact or scrutinises this even though the press event was supposed to be about exactly that handover indeed. Instead they are going after another wild goose chase in my opinion. Perhaps it is helping Trump how the media are behaving. Buzz Feed is a load of clickbait crap. There is too much of this in the media now. "LOOK AT THIS" etc... rather than working on scrutinising important policies and deals.
I thought this at one point but several things he said and policies he ran on went against exactly that. He could have run on a far more watered down ticket such as Romney did. He needed the controversy to win and he admitted that helped several times and he seems to believe this controversy to some extent is what is needed to help the USA. The Mexico wall thing to me doesn't sound crazy even if it is perceived as "controversial". Stronger borders would be needed if you don't want California to become part of Mexico over the next 50 years. People such as the pope can say "We should build bridges now" all they want. But I do not see them tearing down the walls of the Vatican or people leaving their front doors open at night etc.
I reckon in less than 4 years you will get to do this all again with Trump and perhaps Bill De Blasio or Elizabeth Warren or so as Democrat candidate. ;)

It would be unfortunate if the new president to be would be involved in a string of affairs that are illegal. But if he is indeed he should be charged and dealt with accordingly. I wouldn't personally shed a tear at all over this.
I do hope however that you would also have reacted negatively if Hillary won and more information regarding her dodgy email deletion or dodgy Clinton Foundation stuff etc had come to light and would most likely have been pardoned by Obama. ;)

I think you will be ending up with a concussion for every person you disagree with then. :twisted:

What injustice was McCain trying to address exactly? The fact that he only had one elevator for his cars? I jest.

No, if a musician wants to use their position to trumpet their political stance they're welcome to go for it. They're also welcome to face the consequences and their fans are under no obligation to like it. It's the idea that certain people should be given a platform where they are beyond reproach - where they can stand up and say 'hey fans! Look where I am! Look who I'm singing for! Vote for this guy!' and we all have to go 'oh, well, crumbs, I shouldn't say anything negative about that because I might offend the person who just asked for my attention".

I don't think anyone on the planet has the right to be deliberately divisive, deliberately air their views and then be immune to any responses that are less than positive. Luckily very few people think that's true. Very few.

To get back to your original point, I don't think politics and rock n' roll mix and I don't enjoy overtly political artists but that's of course just personal preference.

I like you so I am breaking my word and reply one more time.

You are missing a valuable point here, I think. I don't think many people disagree that Trump is a narcissistic person. And everybody knows how emotional and unfundamentally he reacts to news regarding himself. And nobody seems to be able to tame him. So if there is blackmail-worthy information out there (I have no clue if any of the leaked info contains any truth to it), you should worry. Because Trump will do anything to protect himself. And when a person like that get's pushed in a corner he is the most likely to agree to, whatever demands.

I am not saying that this info exists, but I rather have Hillary Clinton being blackmailed as a President than Donald Trump. From Hillary I am 80+% certain she won't put the safety of her country on the line to keep it under wraps. With Trump I am not even 5% sure. So yes, I want it out there. Bogus info and real private info.

And you must know that I have been negative about Clinton, even during election. I think the Clintons are corrupt, I do believe she has her own agenda but I also have no doubts that, in her own way, she wanted to do, what she believes, is best for the country.

With Trump, and the last months after the election have not comforted me whatsoever, I don't think he thinks on behalf of the people of his country but on behalf of himself. If the history of mankind has learned us anything at all it is that those people are the most dangerous. Especially when they feel their backs are put against a wall.

Ya, but I meant the people I know and respect. Luckily not many of them go there -people defending one of the most immoral persons on this globe for being handled immorally- ;)

Listen I don't know how Trump will do as a President. But I am pretty sure how he reacts in stress situations. I know how easy he sacrifises people for his own benefit. I know how many of his businesses went bankrupt, how many of his projects have been -let's say it friendly- indecent and what he does to get out of the mess. He is not the kind of person that cares about the tragedy of others until he knows his own situation is safe.

I saw the names of his advisors and his cabinet. It is anything but comforting. I know the values I have to life, and this man doesn't share any of mine. So I am worried. He has a short fuse and it is the most unpredictable person to ever set food at a major position, during my lifetime of 44 years.

Anyway Andrew, this is my last post on the matter. I think Trump is a mistake. I think nothing good will come from it and I hope not too many bad things will lead from it. But voters put their hope up on a populist. And that has never been a smart choise in the past. So let's just pray the past doesn't catch up on us.

Oh, they care, and they'll address it, but the fact is that the allegations over Russian involvement is a much more serious issue at the moment, and they had to strike while the iron was hot. I'm sure it's no coincidence that the story became public the night before the press conference was to take place.

And this isn't only about the lurid sex allegations; there is information coming out that he might have received money from the Kremlin through his associates, and/or enlisted Russian assistance to obtain the information that was later used against Hillary.

Of course it is! Trump should know this (although with his obsession with social media, I'm not really that sure), so his trying to conflate what they reported with what CNN reported (which was not exactly the same thing) is a diversionary tactic that might confuse some people.

CNN did not report the details of the dossier because it couldn't be verified; they only reported that Trump was briefed on it's existence, which he denies. Interestingly, because Buzz Feed is clickbait crap, they aren't held to the same standards of journalism, thus would be the perfect outlet for such type of information (were there any truth to it) to come to light. (Recall incidents where The National Enquirer broke stories that later turned out to be true.)

I'd also argue that Trump brought this on himself. I recall weeks ago him stating that he didn't need intelligence briefings because he was too smart for all that; now he's claiming that he wasn't informed.

I really hope not, because I don't think I could go through all of this again!

The Department of Justice has announced that they will be investigating the FBI in regards to the handling of the Clinton e-mail situation and how it was again brought to light right before the election (contrary to policy). There is evidence that the director was aware that Trump was being investigated in regards to possible involvement with the Russians and didn't make the information public prior to the election (obviously). I think that's information the voters had a right to know.

Hands down, best thing I have read on Trump vs Hilary in months. This actually made me somewhat relieved. After watching some video from people in other countries describing the situation, and reading this, I am relieved that others can see this situation with clarity. At least many, many people can, even if the US voters could not avoid this outcome in 2016...

Bravo Ad.

Thank you for answering honestly. ;) I wasn't suggesting (nor do I think that you thought I was) that artists should be immune from criticism for speaking out. I do, however disagree with those who say they should just "shut up and sing".

There is an argument that Trump shouldn't even be at the forthcoming inauguration...

End if the day it's a political ceremony. I don't believe that any celebrity should be performing and therefore turning it into an entertainment show. (I'm trying to avoid using the phrase political circus even though to me and my beliefs it does seem to be turning into one)

To draw a parallel, it's like One Direction performing at the state opening of parliament just after the Queen's Speech. *shudder*

Yes, that would be disengenuous, although Meat's stance was that he had a right to hold whatever belief he had back then (which is right imo), and on this occasion has simply avoided comment. Also, to be fair, he agreed on that occasion (I think the only occasion he has ever appeared at a rally, rather than an inauguration which is business rather than support) in return for a private meeting with the candidate to explore his concerns and the latter's intentions away from public statements

I agree .. although I think they should have to face reasoned argument rather than punishing hatred. I have given reasoned argument to people I know who support Trump; I do not vilify them as human beings, nor wiped them from my contact list. Had Meat publicly supported or endorsed Trump I would have been disappointed, I would perhaps have argued .. but that would not to me diminish the value of his work, and I would not have threatened to burn his albums, nor called him vile names. Artists, like anyone else, have a right to hold and express a view. We applaud them when they do this to draw attention to the plight of those we can all agree are in desperate need, to raise funding. I don't think we can reasonably heap hatred on them if their concern for their country's future inspires them to speak out, even if they are not on the side we favour, although they should be aware that they may well disappoint, even disaffect some of their fans.

You say you don't think rock and roll and politics mix. To me it's not so much whether they mix or not; everyone has the right to speak out on what they believe in, and like Julie I disagree with those who say they should just "shut up and sing"; but each has to accept the potential fall-out and make a wise judgement based on probabilities. I think one needs to be able to spot the contents of the chalice proffered. McCain's proved somewhat bitter .. this inaugural one is heavily poisoned.

Adje, I agree with everything in your last post. I won't quote it all again, save this

Yes. For the first time I find myself wishing I were 30 years older rather than younger, and could say "Oh well .. I'm on borrowed time now, so whatever happens I've had a bloody good innings".

https://youtu.be/BO-TyETzNO8
Link won't embed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/01/u...-cnn.html?_r=0

https://youtu.be/hbUQfhFj6ug

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...-inauguration/

PS Meat did appear at one inauguration fro George Bush in 2001.

Also for Bill Clinton. He's a professional artist .. both were business

And this. We expect heads of state beyond tinpot dictatorships to have some level of gravitas. How on earth can any semblance of gravitas be achieved by a man with fingers flapping like a duck's ass on Twitter every time he feels criticised or slighted? ..

ENOUGH, ENOUGH!! I know I created this thread but I think we've done US politics to death!

Can somebody create a new thread with some Meat related stuff!

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but why did you just now reach this point? When the Trump slander was going strong nobody complained.

I personally would like to see politics and religion be off limits. Plenty of other boards for that.

Oh, I'm not denying that there are problems with the media. My point is, he can't keep using that as an excuse to avoid answering questions that he doesn't like. Besides, how badly can they twist his words when he's speaking them on Live television?

Politics are a huge issue right now, I think it's only natural that people want to talk about it.

I don't think there's necessarily a problem with discussing either, though I will admit that the off-topic section of the board might be a better place for it, so that people who don't wish to take part can avoid it. Here, though, not many people seem to venture into that section, so discussions don't tend to get started.

This comes back to something that was mentioned here a while ago, when someone asked how to get more discussion going on the forum. Unfortunately, there isn't a lot going on right now that's Meat-related, so if people still want to interact (which I'm all for, btw), they need to find something more to talk about.

Every message board out there has its own culture, and this is a great thing. The culture here (not a judgement, just an observation) is that people seem to be uncomfortable with disagreement, and some seem to be easily offended. There's nothing wrong with that, but when people are afraid to engage, for whatever reason, you limit conversation.

Every music-related message board that I'm on (aside from this one) that is still going relatively strong has an other music forum (which we do, though it's not very active) and a political forum. Of course, the problem that comes with discussing politics (and religion) is that it's an emotional subject that can get heated pretty quickly, and people do need to have a bit of a thick skin if you're going to wade into it. Compared to some places, the discussion here has actually been very civil, so I have to commend everyone for that. So, I think it's possible to have such discussions here and not have it go off the rails.

I'm not going to suggest we start a political forum, but maybe a general forum for current events would be of interest- just a thought. Maybe the "Life" section of the board would be sufficient if enough people start and/or contribute to topics. Or, maybe people have other things to do and just want all Meat, all the time. That's fine, too (though we're kind of talked-out there), though I think it's a missed opportunity, because I think people have a lot to say.

Anyway, I don't want to veer off topic any more (I'm used to some other boards where threads just flow where they go), but I just want to put it out there. I think we have a nice, though small community here, and I'd hate to see it just fade away.

I think it would be naive to expect that a thread on this topic would not revolve around US politics; right down to the phrasing of the thread title .. ie not "Will Meat Loaf play", but "Should (he)", which invites opinion on whether he OUGHT to and thus the reasons for that opinion ;)


Indeed .. and the US Presidency will affect all of us, far wider than the USA

I agree :-)

With respect to the OP, ;) that's a good point, Caryl. We could all just answer "Yes" or "No", but it's the reasons why that are interesting.

I do however think that we have to accept Trump has won through the democratic process. I would have preferred somebody else to win but that is life and let's all move on.

I don't think anyone has suggested on this thread that they don't accept he has won (although I see some irony in a democratic process opening the door to what this winner seems to think is a theocracy) .. discussion has moved around people's fears (or in Andrew's case support) for what his inevitable Presidency might bring, and on the rights and wisdom of artists either supporting or opposing him, or indeed any political figure.

However, it's not like winning the 100 metres or a raffle is it? People can't simply move on after any election because the result will impact on their lives in some way. The winners need to be held to account, their decisions and actions observed; those they govern need to be vigilant, and if need be protest and exert pressure (a recent example in the UK was on disability benefit cuts). We don't always get the leaders we deserve, but if we roll over and accept anything they seek to introduce then we do deserve what they mete out

I find it curious that most of this board which seems anti-Trump has now decided politics is a good topic. All through the Obama years there was hardly a peep. I do not see why - as we are constantly reminded a board dedicated to Meat Loaf (the old "his name is at the top" dead horse) now wants to turn political. Maybe I will have to start religious threads and see how that flies.

So let me get this straight. The POTUS is feared that he will spends his time on the rights of "artists". I would like that clarified before I address it.

What do we have to talk about though? Meat's been sick, not like we'll get tons of great Meat Loaf news. Of course it turns to politics or current events. People just getting the conversation going is a normal thing in groups...

Just saw an Ad on NowThis on Facebook saying how repealing the affordable care act could result in a 9/11 level of deaths every month from people losing health care.

Crazy times we live in...

Based to a "study" by "The Urban Institute". That Facebook page has "don't leave us Obama" at the top.

The majority of this thread mirrors why Trump got elected. The social, liberal elite who think they're better than the average man/woman in the street talk in an articulate, patronising way of how terrible Trump is. This just puts off the silent majority who then are tempted to vote the opposite way. A similar thing happened in the UK over Brexit.

None of which I'm disputing. Yea, so its some left-leaning social media feed, so what?

The "Study" has Bernie's support, so if you're far left learning, you'd probably support it just as wholeheartedly.

Anyways, I'm not far left leaning. I have my opinions, none of which I would I share much online.

But I do think that - coming from Canada, where if we have a curable illness, we most likely will live - that with 20 million people losing coverage overnight in the states (that's 2/3 of the population of Canada by the way), people will die. Of course they will. Many of them wont have any way to pay for their treatment...Their choice will be between draining their entire family's resources and being so in debt forever that they have no chance, and dying and letting their family have a future...

I'm not surprised that lawmakers aren't even attempting to make a new plan first for universal health care, then transition the people and phase out Obamacare. They've been so hell bent on killing Obamacare that they don't care, they just want it gone ASAP.

And you know, if universal health care that we have had in Canada my entire life was suddenly pulled out from under us, I can name off people - friends, family members - whose health and quality of life would immediately decrease. People I know and love would probably die far sooner by opting for no expensive treatments. So, it's kind of a big deal. And it does *not* take a massive amount of brain power to come to the conclusion that thousands each year MORE would die without universal health care.

Good, because that's not what I meant, and I think not what I said .. I referred to discussion turning to two things; one being fears about what his Presidency may bring, and the other on the rights and wisdom of artists coming out in support or opposition.

I don't agree that to be able to articulate one's views clearly implies that those who do think themselves "better", nor is it patronising, unless the reader chooses to grab that hat and shove it on their head .. in fact to claim this is a kind of inverted snobbery in itself imo, and diminishes both education and willingness to read, research, and to do one's best to inform oneself and to check out media articles against evidence one has seen and heard, against reports and studies etc. If the average is inarticulate we have a massive problem in education; when they are not prepared to read beyond headlines we have a ill-informed populace.

I think your comparison to Brexit is a massive over-simplification .. but will not drag this thread down that warren ;)

Just to be perfectly clear, Trump is not supported by the majority, silent or otherwise. Hillary Clinton won the popular vote by almost 3 million MORE votes over Trump. The MAJORITY of those that voted, voted for Clinton! It was a thing called the Electoral College that got the U.S. him as their leader. This statement is one oif the reasons political discussions get ugly - stating falsehoods to support your point
One of the other reasons why political discussions turn ugly is because people like you feel the need to unfairly make sweeping judgements,categorizing and putting labels on people! When you start judging and making grandious generalizations by calling those that didn't support Trump things like "liberal elite"," think they are better than the average person", and "patronizing", you can bet you are going to piss people off by being so pompous and judgemental! And yes that is when political discussions understandably get very ugly.
Adje has the right idea, stay away from political ar, religious discussions

The last word I would use to describe myself is "elite", and I certainly don't think I'm any better than anyone else. I think the huge outcry over Trump's election has less to do with his policies and everything to do with Trump himself- people don't see him as being fit for the job- end of. I don't get why this seems so hard for some people to understand.

My son is 22 years old. He had a surgery last year (he's fine, thankfully) that we would not have been able to afford were it not for the provision of Obamacare that allows him to remain on our insurance until he is 26. I'm concerned about what his situation is going to be in the near future, as his current job doesn't provide medical insurance.

That, to me, is the scariest part- they can't wait to get rid of it without first coming up with any kind of replacement plan.

Now, I thought I would turn this discussion somewhat back towards the original subject of the thread with a real world example. As I think most people know, Bruce Springsteen has spoken out against Trump, and supported Hillary (though not nearly as strongly as he did Obama) during the campaign. It's been reported in the news (somewhat erroneously) that The B Street Band, a Springsteen tribute act, is playing the inauguration, and many Springsteen fans are quite angry, saying that the band should not play, even to the point of calling for a boycott of their future appearances.

For the sake of accuracy, the band isn't actually playing the inauguration, they are playing a gala the night before for a non-partisan organization called the New Jersey State Society, which holds this gala every four years, regardless of which candidate wins the election. In fact, The B Street band was contracted for next week's gig back in 2013, after they played when Obama won (they also played in 2009).

Critics are saying that the band should pull out of the gig in respect to Bruce's feelings about Trump, and/or that Bruce should somehow forbid them from using his music, which I'm not sure that he could do, even if he wanted to. For the record, Bruce or his representatives have so far declined to comment.

So, what do people think? Let's not make this about Bruce, but instead generalize it, or turn it around. We don't know for sure which candidate Meat preferred because he didn't tell us, but for the sake of conversation, let's pretend he supported Trump and Hillary won, and a Meat Loaf tribute act was contracted to play the same gala. Should they? Are tribute acts under some obligation to respect the politics of the artist they support? Would it be different if the gala in question was strictly for a certain candidate as opposed to a non-partisan affair? Given how there are members of some tribute acts present on the board, I'm interested in what people's thoughts and feelings are.

Also, do people think the original artist has a right to ask that the band shouldn't play, or to ask that their music not be used?

Yes you don't need to explain the electoral college system. That is the American democratic system and therefore Trump did win by a majority.

In 2005 in the UK Michael Howard got more of the popular vote than Tony Blair did in England, however Blair won comfortably. I dont remember the UK moaning about it day and night.

I would have preferred Trump not to have won, but for the future of the great American nation and possibly the western world let's accept the result and move on.

Tony Blair wasn't the UK's Charlie Sheen of politics :shrug:

It's precisely for the future of the United States, and by extension, the western world that people are concerned. If there is any truth to the allegations that Trump is in office in any part due to the influence of a foreign nation, that's quite troubling indeed. It would be illogical, irresponsible and wrong to just "accept the result and move on".

Please explain to me how LOSING the popular vote by almost 3 million votes, is winning by a majority????? If you count those that voted against him by voting 3rd party or write-in candidate he LOST by an even greater margin! You sound just like Trump we says he won BIGLY.
When discussing politics, you need to stick to facts, please. And the FACT is that Trump did not win by any type of majority!!!!!! He LOST the popular vote!

Hi Boston...yep as I will stick to the facts...he won a majority as he won more electoral college votes than any other party. This is the US democratic system.

Your argument is like saying you should win a soccer game because you had more shots than the opposition, but the opposition scored more goals. We knew the rules before the election let's just accept the result.

You are incorrect. You know that what you stated is not how the election works. That makes your conclusion about a majority wrong. The majority of Americans didn't even vote at all! This is why discussing politics is a bad idea. You can't have a rational, logical discussion with someone, such as yourself who purposely bends and distorts statistics and the situation to fit their faulty narrative of reality.
So, I won't discuss this anymore.
And for the record, Meat Loaf should stay far away from any type of performance at the inauguration.

I'm not sure how I "bend and distorts statistics" I am simply telling you how the US electoral system works.

Can we please now move on. Boston you've made the right decision in not discussing this anymore.

However, elections for Head of State and for parliament are like apples and oranges. The US uses the same first past the post system for congress and senate as we do for the commons. In the 20C and this one the UK has had 4 occasions when a government was formed without a majority of the public vote. Electoral reformists do moan about it, but in 2011 the UK voted against adopting a new system, and one advantage of the first past the post system is that in the vast majority of cases a government is elected with a majority which enables them to govern without being held hostage by a minority party. Another key difference is that in the UK we elect a party not a Prime Minister, and if the PM becomes sufficiently unpopular he/she can be replaced during that term. Of course the electorate does not have power to choose who that replacement would be, although there is a case that party members should be able to vote who should become leader (as recently happened with the Labour party here). There remains a difference between first past the post and using an electoral college to elect a Head of State, and many Americans believe the electoral college system as it currently exists is an anachronism, and reflects the popular vote less than first past the post in that key states can be won by a narrow majority yet exercise disproportionate influence on the outcome.

Exactly. And I agree also that the importunate rush to repeal the ACA in the absence of a replacement is horrifying.

I'd grant that any artist or group has a right to express a political opinion, although as I've already said they should arguably exercise wisdom, and this applies to a tribute group. In the case of an inaugural celebration, I think in most cases it's fair to see an appearance as business, a professional engagement (Meat for eg has appeared at both Democrat and Republican inaugurations). However, this US election has been particularly divisive; this President elect significantly despised by half the US electorate.

Trump repeatedly used music at rallies during his campaign without permission from the artists concerned, which provoked strong condemnation from many, prompting them to speak out strongly against not only that use but also about the man, his behaviour, ethics and policies (I use the last two words lightly). So do I think tributes to those artists should think long and hard before accepting an engagement for the inaugural celebrations? Yes, I do. They are likely to alienate at least a section of their fanbase, and may also alienate the artists concerned. The latter of itself may not worry them I guess, but any tribute who disaffects the artist sufficiently may well have cause to regret it .. he whose name is reduced here to a series of ***** found this to his cost ;)

As to whether the original artist has a right to ask that the band shouldn't play, they clearly have the right to request this of the tribute, but I'd guess no legal right to enforce it. I do think it's a sign of discourtesy to the artists on whose coat-tails they make a living to offer or agree to appear, and would most certainly be to ignore the artist's request were it made.

As to the artist asking that their music not be used, I think they have the right to to ask but no legal standing to refuse. One would think that tribute bands would have to seek approval directly from the original artists and negotiate payments for the use of their songs and, in some cases, identities. These assumptions would be wrong. Tribute bands pay nothing directly to the original artists whom they “pay tribute to” for live performances. This is because they fall through the cracks of the current licensing system for public performances of copyrighted works. Any money that is actually collected for tribute band performances is covered by licenses purchased by venues or promoters, not the bands themselves, and little if any actually reaches the original artist. As the law stands the artists to whom these bands pay tribute are not compensated, nor do they have any realcontrol over their tribute band counterparts’ use or exploitation of their works and personae.

However, they do have some muscle in terms of fair use as opposed to trade mark abuse, and the other area which might support a request not to use their music is the Right of Publicity in the USA, defined as “the inherent right of every human being to control the commercial use of their identity”, which in some jurisdictions has come to protect likeness, name, persona, catch phrase, and even voice. This leans towards (though doesn't insist on) good practice through which tribute bands would seek permission from the original artists they pay tribute to, so that original artists can maintain control over the goodwill associated with their identities. In cases where this has been used the plaintiff must demonstrate a commercial interest in his or her identity, the defendant must have commercially used some aspect of the plaintiff’s identity without permission, and finally, the defendant’s use must have caused some type of damage. The last is usually commercial damage (Apple Music brought a case against Beatlemania and won). It might be hard to demonstrate in court at this stage a case for damaging goodwill towards the original artist by the tribute's appearance at an unpopular inauguration, but a request not to use their music might be beefed up by referring to Right of Publicity.