On violence in music, selective outrage, and moral panics

 You have probably never heard of Ray Wylie Hubbard.  Fifty years ago, you might have known the song, "Up Against The Wall, Redneck Mother," but erroneously attributed it to Jerry Jeff Walker, who also went by three names and made a minor hit of the song.  Ray Wylie Hubbard is cooler, and he wrote the song.  One might examine themes of violence in that song, but I actually intend to begin with a bit of stage banter from a live Hubbard album, in which he noted that "in music, Ralph Stanley has killed more people than Ice-T."  As the saying goes, the best jokes need to be explained.  I'm pretty sure I have that right, so here goes.  Ralph Stanley was one of the first bluegrass artists, initially with his brother in... The Stanley Brothers, and then as a solo artist, and he received some late fame for an unaccompanied rendition of "O Death" in the O Brother, Where Art Thou soundtrack.  Ice-T was a rapper whose most public notoriety came from "Cop Killer."  Yet, bluegrass and Appalachian music have a long tradition of the "murder ballad," hence Hubbard's joke.

Those of us who are a) music snobs, b) love country, and c) want to encourage a wider range of people to listen to the genre appreciate that Chris Stapleton has somehow become one of the faces, or more importantly, voices of the genre.  He started with a bluegrass group called The Steeldrivers, stumbled into fame, and never let the image consultants give him a makeover, nor even worse, let the producers touch his sound.

But face of the genre has returned to an all-hat-no-cattle bro, which is what we, game theorists, call "equilibrium."  In a sense, I'm happy.  You see, if I am honest, it causes me some hipster dissonance when artists I love get famous, and when the guy from The Steeldrivers got big, I had to deal with everyone knowing who he was, which hurt my hipster-brain.  The natural state of the world, particularly for country, is for me to say that the big names have no talent and that you have no taste if you listen to them, and you don't even know what real country is!  I mean, did you know who Ray Wylie Hubbard was?  I thought not.  [Self-satisfied huff.]

Point being, Jason Aldean kind of sucks, and it is natural and right for him to be the big name in country music so that I can go on such rants.  Yet mostly, those rants focus on the talent gap between your Jason Aldeans and your whohaveyous on one side, and then your Chris Sta... bad example.  Um... let's go with Ray Wylie Hubbard, or Sarah Shook, or Darrell Scott, or someone else you don't know, but who lets me say, "this is what country is supposed to be."

Yet right now, Jason Aldean is famous outside of country's fandom for something other than sucking.  Or rather, in addition to sucking.  He is famous for the lyrics to his song.

Let's just say it wasn't "Imagine."

Fine.  I listened to a Jason Aldean song.  All the way through.  Musically speaking, it is not the absolute worst piece of shit ever recorded, keeping in mind how much shit has been recorded.  Yet the controversies surround the questions of violent content in "Try That In A Small Town."

Is the song violent?  Is the song... racist?

The song describes a range of actions to which Aldean objects, ranging from flag burning and treating cops disrespectfully to carjacking and armed robbery.  Aldean tells anyone considering this rather wide range of actions, "try that in a small town."  That is the gist.  It is difficult to interpret that refrain as anything other than a thinly veiled threat, and without a direct reference to the supposed efficacy of police in small towns, it does seem to indicate vigilantism.

When asked about the song, Aldean has not indicated that he thought of the song as a reference to small town police efficacy in addressing carjackings, but as a reference to small town communities taking care of each other, which would again speak to ideas of vigilantism.

I can draw no conclusion but that the lyrics threaten vigilante violence.

Violence is nothing new to music.  The Ray Wylie Hubbard comment with which I began this post is not an anti-rap diatribe, but an acknowledgment of the history of the murder ballad, and the general themes of violence across music.

Does a lot of rap glorify violence?  Yes.

Does rap cause violence?  That's a much more difficult argument to make.  But do the lyrics frequently glorify violence?  Yes.

How does the glorification of vigilantism in the Aldean song compare to the common glorification of violence in rap?  Note that there is a range of actions against which Aldean tacitly threatens vigilante violence, going from carjackings to flag burning.  Flag burning is constitutionally protected speech, with the ruling written by none other than Antonin Scalia.

A carjacking is violent crime.

A discerning reader or thinker might note that these are, what we call, "different."  Flag burning may bother Jason Aldean.  It may even... heaven forfend... offend Jason Aldean, but it is speech, and indeed, constitutionally protected speech, and while there are some distressing new polls coming out about left-wing opposition to free speech among Generation Z, for Aldean to threaten vigilante violence against constitutionally protected speech, alongside carjackings, somewhat muddles his claim to moral standing.

Is there any racial content to the song?  One must stretch, in bad faith, to find it, and I prefer to read and listen in good faith.  Doing so does no favors to Aldean, who threatens violence in response to constitutionally protected speech.  One need not engage in bad faith listening to find something to which one can object when this is the actual content.

And yet I turn to the topic of selective outrage.  Among those outraged, is there any outrage over the glorification of the very carjackings against which Aldean threatens vigilante violence?  You can probably find someone, if you search with sufficient diligence, but this breaks down largely along partisan/ideological/racial lines.  Either the glorification of criminal violence in rap is OK, or Jason Aldean's threat of vigilante violence against flag burners is OK, but it is one or the other, mutually exclusive and exhaustive.

One may note that I am focusing in particular on vigilantism directed at flag burners in Aldean's song.  Why?  Consider carjacking.  Actually, don't consider carjacking.  Or consider it and then promptly reject it.

You can find rap songs that glorify the act, prompting no outrage from those excoriating Aldean.  What should happen to those who commit the act?  They should be arrested, tried, convicted, and spend the rest of their lives in prison.

Vigilantism?  No, for the simple reason that vigilantism has no check against its errors.  The criminal justice system does.  Yet, in the hypothetical case of the omniscient observer, would you shed as many tears if a vigilante kills a carjacker as when a vigilante kills a flag burner?  Really?  If you are reading a book and a carjacker gets killed by a vigilante, and you know, as the reader of a book with a reliable narrator, that the carjacker did it, do you react with as much moral revulsion as if a vigilante kills a flag-burner?  Really?

As we consider the threats of violence in Jason Aldean's song, the moral challenge is not merely that it threatens vigilante violence, but that the song contains threats of violence for such a wide range of actions, from the irredeemably, violently criminal, to free speech, constitutionally protected.  When we then consider the reactions to Aldean, a rational observer cannot help but notice that we are expected either to bestow our blessings upon Aldean, bestow our blessings upon gangsta rap, or... or nothing, because that is the mutually exclusive and exhaustive set of choices.

But what if I want to be consistent in my treatment of the glorification of violence in music?  Do I get an option?

The history of music shows a pattern of glorification of violence owing to no race, no party, no culture, and no ideology.  Moreover, as Thomas Sowell demonstrated, much of what you think is distinctively African-American culture is derived from Scots-Irish immigrants, from whom we have the tradition of those previously mentioned murder ballads, Appalachian string band music, and eventually, bluegrass.  Music aside, and focusing on language and culture, I recommend Sowell's Black Rednecks & White Liberals.

We may apply, then, the same skepticism towards any Aldean backlash as towards any other "moral panic," be it the moral panic over rap, heavy metal, video games, comic books, Dungeons & Dragons, or anything else.  

In 1985, the Parents Music Resource Council (PMRC) had drawn enough attention to ostensibly offensive lyrics in popular music that there were Senate hearings.  It helped that cofounder, Tipper Gore, had a husband in the Senate, but the PMRC really was making a lot of noise.  Three artists were brought in to testify-- my man, Frank Zappa, Twisted Sister's Dee Snider, and... John Denver.  Yes, John Denver, of "Take Me Home, Country Roads," fame.  Clearly, a very offensive artist.  Despite being torn to shreds during the hearings, the PMRC did not stop, and they are why music got those "explicit lyrics" labels that made kids buy even more copies of stuff before digital piracy became a thing.

What really got Tipper all hot under the... collar, though, was someone who happened to make an appearance of a sort in a midweek post a few days ago.  Luther Campbell, from 2 Live Crew, satirized by Chris Rock, who protested to Phil Hartman's Sinatra that he needed to "work blue" because he had no talent, agreed by Sting's Billy Idol and Jan Hooks's Sinead O'Connor.

Luther Campbell had no talent.  I am a free speech absolutist, and from a legal perspective, I'll be Evelyn Beatrice Hall to his... um... this goes nowhere good.  He got famous for a, let's generously call it a song, which was grossly misogynistic and racist.  You can go listen if you want, but it was bad in every way.

But I've heard what rap still is, and if anything, much is worse today.  I have a high degree of confidence that some rap version of a musical hipster would tell me that I know nothing of the form, but I have no interest in putting the effort into the investigation, and that isn't the point.  My point is the history of moral panics ranging across genres.

John Fucking Denver.  When the PMRC went after Luther Campbell, it was just a few years after their fracas with John Denver.

Elvis's hips?

With any of these phenomena, the empirical analysis attempting to connect the terrible, horrible, no good, very bad thing in question to actual bad behavior was never so clear as the posturing.

In the 19th Century, the great moral panic was about chess, which was sure to teach the kids to be violent and anti-social, because it was a game about war, during which the participants did nothing but stare at a board instead of talk or be sociable.

Granted, your average chess nerd (hi!) may be a bit lacking in social graces [cough, cough], but still, the warnings may have been a tad overwrought.

Does that mean Aldean's song doesn't have some creepy elements?  No.  More or less creepy elements than rap?

Why must we compare?  My observation is about selective outrage.  Are you outraged by Jason Aldean, but not rap?  Rap, but not Aldean?  Must one be outraged by precisely one?

Or might one observe, empirically, that violent themes have been a part of music for a long time, with empirical effects less than clear?

Does one predict, on pain of embarrassment, that the vigilantism in Aldean's song is about to happen because some Nashville bro sang about it?  And what if it doesn't happen?  Will anyone engaged in The Great Jason Aldean Moral Panic of 2023 say, "oops, maybe I overdid it a bit?"

Or does one say that entertainment-- if one hesitates to call some of it "art"-- can exist and be consumed with little discernible effect on the precious moral fiber of your gullible kids.

Maybe teach your kids some honor, and not to be so goddamned gullible.

As for music, the only question was which murder ballad Ralph would sing.  Here's a personal favorite of mine, "The Banks Of The Ohio."  Are you morally outraged?  If not, why not?  And if you cannot make a consistent argument, then maybe recognize that outrage is most in need of tempering when it is selective without logical justification.