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

[nightinr]

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!

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

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

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?

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

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.

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.

[CarylB]

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

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

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

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

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 agree

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by CarylB

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

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.

[nightinr]

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.

[CarylB]

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

[loaferman61]

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.

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by CarylB

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

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.

[stretch37]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

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.

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...

[loaferman61]

Originally Posted by stretch37

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.

[nightinr]

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.

[stretch37]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

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

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.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by loaferman61

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.

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.

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

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

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

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

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

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.

Originally Posted by stretch37

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...

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.

Originally Posted by stretch37

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.

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?

[nightinr]

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.

[stretch37]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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

[Julie in the rv mirror]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

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".

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

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!

[nightinr]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

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.

[BostonAngel]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

[nightinr]

Originally Posted by BostonAngel

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.

[CarylB]

Originally Posted by nightinr

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Julie in the rv mirror

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.

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

Now, I thought I would turn this discussion somewhat back towards the original subject of the thread .............

........ 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?

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.