Presidential music

Please don’t let the following serve as an endorsement for Donald J. Trump. Or for any presidential candidate for that matter. But especially that carrot-colored bag of xenophobic farts.

Because as much as it pains me, I have to stand up for Big D.

Not because of his nuanced perspective on foreign policy, his poignant way with words, or that ceaseless dedication to racial sensitivity, but his choice of music. As of late, the presumptive Republican nominee for President of the United States of America has been using a few Rolling Stones songs, namely “You Can’t Always Get What You Want”, during his rallies. And, as one might expect, the Stones were less than stoked about their inclusion, going so far as to send a cease and desist letter. It’s not the first time Donnie boy has been targeted by music elite; Adele sent a similar request in February and he’s also been warned by R.E.M., Steven Tyler, and Twisted Sister.

Now, first and foremost, the Stones, Adele, R.E.M., and any other artist have every right to ask any political candidate to stop using their music at various campaign events. As the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers explained, politicians need to secure the proper copyright licenses before using any song at a rally or in promotional material. And even if the candidate and his people get every license necessary, ASCAP said artists can still pursue legal action. That’s because the candidate may be in violation of the “Right of Publicity” (“image protection for famous people or artists”) or the Lanham Act, which “covers the confusion or a dilution of a trademark through its unauthorized use.”

This level of coverage is vital for artists, and assures them the ownership and control of their music they so rightly deserve. Only, this isn’t some copyright issue or trademark infringement. If it were, Neil Young would have shamed Bernie Sanders just as bad as he did Trump. Or, the likes of Katy Perry and Kelly Clarkson would’ve sought legal action after making Hillary Clinton’s official Spotify campaign playlist. Instead, Bernie’s people put on a music festival in Indio while Trump is the bane of Keith Richards’ existence. It all boils down to no one wanting to support or have ties with Lord Combover, and while I can’t blame them for it, I am a little disappointed.

When acts like Adele or the Stones threaten legal action, they’re not doing it because they hate Trump, even though it’s clear that they want to drop him into a volcano for forcing them to be guilty by association. But if need be, they’ll stand behind copyright protection to get their way, and that’s not what these laws are for. They are meant to protect a person or group’s music, something that hasn’t always been given priority given the push toward copyright reform in recent years.

Even when copyright law is properly enforced, it can a hugely confusing and occasionally cumbersome process. Crying wolf, as it were, just invalidates some of these protections. They’re meant to give artists ownership, and when they’re clearly used to stifle some tool bag in a needlessly expensive suit, it demonstrates that artists aren’t committed to actual copyright protection. By continually distorting it, making the laws more nebulous and broad, that’s only weakening the system that’s in place.

Now I’m all for copyright protection when it comes to featuring music in campaign ads. There’s a clear cut purpose at hand, selling a product just like Pepsi or Mrs. Butterworth’s syrup might, and copyright should protect financial interests above all else. But despite what current copyright law might say, there’s a huge difference between using a song in a TV spot and having Trump walk to the stage to “(I Can’t Get No) Satisfaction”. Again, he’s trying to send a message and sell himself, but a few bars in some barn in Delaware is about the same as your mom playing Skid Row’s “Youth Gone Wild” at your 15th birthday party at the skating rink. There’s no commercial use intended, and that kind of distinction needs to be considered in these cases. It shouldn’t be a one-size-fits-all approach for these infractions.

Because then I have to ask, how far does the protection go? Just how much power of influence can an artist eventually exert? Pardon me if this is another slippery slope argument, the kind that’s led some folks to think we’ll one marry dolphins or goats. This one’s way more valid, and not because I think Katy Perry might one day show up to your bachelorette party and ask you to stop playing “I Kissed A Girl.” Rather because I think that as important as copyright protection is, it’s just as vital to question the limits in place. To ask serious questions of how much protection is too far, at what point do artists have to let go of music, and what are we really protecting when it comes to copyrights, trademarks, etc. If anything, going to an extreme place just might prove the stability of key arguments. Like a modified form of the “reductio ad absurdum” argument (Thanks Google.)

There’s at least some legal wiggle room when it comes to live events, though. In 2012, Northwestern law professor Peter DiCola told NPR that most public venues can play popular music because they have what are called blanket licenses from both ASCAP and the BMI. The only venues who don’t have licenses are smaller, non-traditional settings, as Newt Gingrich found out when he played Survivor’s “Eye of the Tiger” at places like an industrial plant or a Moose lodge. He eventually settled with the Chicago classic rockers.

But I don’t want to strictly argue copyright law or perceptions. Because even if it’s ultimately just needless blanket coverage, I’ll happily zip my lip if it’s all in the favor of artists maintaining control. More than any copyright misgivings, I just don’t think it’s a good move on the part of the artists to blast Trump or other political candidates for using their music.

Again, Adele and the Stones and any other artist with a grudge against Trump have every right to be upset. I might feel some kind of way if Trumpy-Wumpy took a song like “You Can’t…”, a catchy little ditty about the value of pragmatism, and used it for his own means. Especially cause that guy either A) Missed out on the meaning entirely or B) Has perverted it to be about how America stinks and he’s gonna make it so great again you guys. So great. But in this instance, separating from Trump’s usage seems like a bad idea.

By calling him out, you’re only empowering him further, giving dangerous credence to not only his campaign (which doesn’t need help) but to whatever message he might have developed with the song. Sure, it’s all about the spin, but golden gods like the Stones smack-talking Trump only further casts him as the anti-establishment Viking he hopes can win the presidency of the biggest country in the world. And I’d hate to have to blame Mick Jagger for the ascension of Trump-enstein.

I think Mr. Neil Young was on to much better solution when he effectively gifted Sanders with his songs. Artists have a lot of pull with their fans, and by using music to demonstrate political allegiances or just a sense of respect will go a long way toward moving votes in either direction. You could argue that at least some of Barack Obama’s political success is tied into his genius use of music. He readily embraced his status as a hip-hop head, received a campaign song from Bruce Springsteen, and sang Al Green to the American public. And he’s leaving office more beloved than Ronald Reagan himself.

Or, when a candidate like Trump does your music, I’d love to see bands totally offer their approval. Release a brief statement like, “While we don’t agree with Mr. Trump’s candidacy, he’s free to use our music given that he respects proper copyright.” Watch as most candidates immediately switch songs over how they might be perceived. Even Trump himself doesn’t have sun-baked skin strong enough to withstand that kind of subtle backlash. Hopefully.

Regardless of the reason, I hope Trump wins the battle with the Stones. And any other bands who take issue with him appropriating their music. There is too much at stake for the heart and soul of music to get caught up in such pettiness. Especially when the real heavy blows come with a much more nuanced approach to the issue at hand.

Just let that be the only thing Trump wins.