(I'm glad we finally we have Bush supporters writing, I was wondering how could he win elections when every American I know votes against him)

Dear Ruth,

Since your post is in a public forum allow me to make some comments. You touched very interesting points I'd like to say something about.

> Significant art of any type is a timeless examination of humanity.
> When you affix your self to a transient ideology, you tie yourself to
> one point in time and become irrelevant to the future.

It's not us who can talk about Suzanne's music intemporality. Future generations will dictate that. Usually it depends on a large group of factors, and it's not as straightforward as you put it.

However, you have counter examples in the past. See Beethoven, who committed strongly with Napoleon's ideals, even against his own nation. He even did works praising his "hero" (see Symphony nr 3, "Eroica"). Napoleon's armies were swept away from Europe, but Beethoven's work kept it's intemporality.

See Bob Dylan, who made his name stating his ideas about a situation in a moment in US history. The circumstances changed, but he is still seen as a genious.

I think that picking a particular episode, circumstance, thought or feeling, doesn't kill the intemporality of the art, as long as the artist can make it in a way he/she can convey an universality that will touch even those who are not living in that timeframe or place.

Suzanne will never touch everyone, and she may not touch you anymore because you'll see other meanings in her work. It's perfectly normal. But her work touches people. Not because she supports this or that candidate, but because she can speak directly to people's hearts in the way she conveys her own feelings and actions.

As long as she does it with sincerity, she deserves to be respected.

Finally about art and politics. Some say all real art is political. Artists create revolutions of thought, they teach us how to see the world through different prespectives, they provoque discussion and awareness, they educate the consciousness. That's not new. See Plato's "Republic" and you'll see how artists were so important for him in the creation of the perfect society.

As Fátima put it. Suzanne's work has always been political, not in a political parties sense, but in a much higher and deeper sense. We must respect that Suzanne feels her voice must be committed on a more concrete purpose.

José Carlos

---

http://www.vega.net
http://setlists.vega.net
http://rustedpipe.vega.net

Thank you, JC, for your eloquent and thoughtful contribution to this discussion.

It has long been debated whether art in its many forms should engage with the 'real' world (including politics) or not. The Victorian poets, for instance, were preoccupied with this issue. Elizabeth Barrett Browning thought it vital that poets should interact with the world as they saw it, and should reflect it in their art. Others, such as Tennyson disagreed, preferring to explore current issues through analogy and myth.

But their struggle surrounded whether or not the content of their art should become embroiled in the political sphere. And it is here that I feel their issue was different from the one we are debating. As far as I know, Suzanne has not written a song about the American elections. Rather, she is aligning herself personally with a particular political standpoint; surely as a free American she has every right to do so, and should be able to do so without alienating others who do not share her political views? Therefore, I do not agree that her music will somehow lose its relevance to future generations, due to her participation in this concert. Individually, as human beings, we are all surely, "irrelevant to the future" (to use Ruth's phrase) to a greater or a lesser extent: but our legacies (including Suzanne's wonderful music) are not.

I am impressed by Suzanne's willingess to take a stand in this time of global upheaval and change; and even if I didn't agree with her allegiances, I would respect her courage.

Rather than being irrelevant, I would argue that Suzanne's music has never been more relevant; I am confident that it will continue to speak to innumerable hearts in the future.

With best wishes,
Stella

A Bush supporter José Carlos, or more like one of his "plants?" We'd better check out some of the other sites of Concerts for Change artists to see if Ms. Blumit has also wagged her finger at anyone else! No doubt by November 3rd, there will be 2 CD's left on her shelf from being everyone's FORMER lifelong fan.

All Americans (who vote) are now in the "political fray." It matters not what each of us does for a living, unless of course Ms. Blumit would also like to dictate which career groups can vote for whom.

The choices we make in the next few weeks will greatly affect each of our lives—that Suzanne has made hers is no different from me putting my money where my mouth is, and attending this concert tomorrow evening, which I fully intend to do. Any problem with that—I'm a graphic designer?

Echoing fátima's sentiments—it IS sad that you seem unable to respect Suzanne's choices, but the bright spot that comes from this, is that none of us will have to sit next to you at her concerts anymore.

Catherine

---

"If we don't change the direction we are headed,
we will end up where we are going."

—Chinese Proverb

It is rather suspicious Ruth Blumit only registered on here yesterday, but still a bit harsh to dismiss her completely.

I visit the sites of some other artistes who have been active recently on the "Vote For Change" circuit and it is astounding to read the rabid comments by the loony right wingers who support the incumbent junta. They are perhaps too dim - like a certain contributor here - to realise that the artiste in question is quite clearly on record (sic) as being a liberal. I mean, there ARE conservatives who listen to Dylan, albeit a minority. I hope the US does get a change. All that is required is for people to get up and vote. Hopefully someone/something will actually count the votes.

All credit to Suzanne and the others for standing up in public. The alternative is the reintroduction of the draft and all combatants - men AND women - will be shipped off to Dubya´s new wars in Iran, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Syria.

Maybe someone here could also pull the plug on Fox News on Election Night?

---

"...when the armies of emotion
go out to fight..."

Dear Ruth,

I am sorry that you no longer consider yourself a fan of Suzanne Vega. By not attending any shows or, I assume, buying any future albums I think you are cutting yourself off from an extremely talented performer.

I am a bit puzzled about parts of the message you left on the thread in coming to this, in my humble opinion, misguided conclusion.

I have to agree with others who have subsequently posted, that by simply voting an individual is entering the political fray. Surely that is a good thing? We have seen in the UK that when turnout falls dramatically extremist parties, such as the British National Party, gain ground. Suzanne Vega said at the time of an earlier election (was there one in 1988?)that she would vote for Michael Dukakis, but that her favoured president would be Jesse Jackson. Would a supporter of The Reverend Jackson be a supporter of President Bush, 16 years on? If you are suggesting, however, that it is a cynical marketing ploy then I would strongly disagree as no evidence points to it.

You suggest that "significent art of any type is a timeless examination of humanity". Ok, that may be so and maybe a particular artist may hope for that, although I wouldn't be so quick to second guess an artists motives. One example might be Alec Guinness, who considered many of his films as ways of "paying for school fees or getting the central heating fixed". Having said that, I cannot see how anything cannot be rooted in the time it was created, since nothing is created in a vacuum. The influnces on Suzanne Vega (or anyone else you care to name for that matter) are bound to be different in 2004, than they were in 1984. Whether or not art becomes irrelevent in the future is surely besides the point, unless it was created to ensure some sort of immortality? (and that is a vain concept in itself) Moreover, we don't know as we haven't got there yet! What does matter is now and you seem keen to dump Suzanne Vega for a legitimate view held and expressed in a free country. I would assume you have the same thoughts on her support of other causes; e.g. the benefit she played on Thursday evening for WHY?

Finally I don't think this benefit will make much difference either way to her album sales or success of future tours. Point your argument toward Bruce Springsteen or The Dixie Chicks, and you may be right. Suzanne Vega has been successful due to the quality of her recorded material and live shows, and that will continue.

A few thoughts respectfully submitted

Mike

Ruth and All,

The Hungarians who had to leave Hungary for taking part in the 1956 revolution (which was put down by Soviet tanks and dirty communists) and found shelter and settled in USA (especially in Philadelphia) used to be for the republicans, in majority. I heard there was a slight change about voting preference in 1992,(with growing number of voters for the democrats) but now, it's clearly evident that
Bush has managed to lose really a lot of voters of them (of those who supported him in 2000), what is more,
they will support Kerry, for sure!!!just to let you know where that 'supporting' hand in US is now(they are sober
voters, so they will vote for the sober candidate).
Recently a leader of the US Hungarian community was
interviewed by Magyar Nemzet (a 1956 man) and he told about tendency and polls
in US concerning them.
Anyway, today we commemorate the start of the revolution -October 23, 1956.

best,
Zoli
(from Budapest)

I wonder if Ruth has read any of the remarks regarding her 1(one) post on this message board.

I'm not much into politics myself. To tell the truth, I'm too easily bewildered by all the different views; it often seems impossible to work out which side (if any!) is telling the truth!

I think sometimes though there comes a time when we believe in something so strongly, we just have to stand up and be counted, no matter how many people might disagree - either with what we say, or with our right to say it.

This above all: to thine own self be true,
And it must follow, as the night the day,
Thou canst not then be false to any man.

David wrote:

"It is rather suspicious Ruth Blumit only registered on here yesterday, but still a bit harsh to dismiss her completely."

True, on your first point, David; but in reading her post, she dismissed herself IMHO. Everyone is entitled to their choices, as Ms. Blumit is, but I wonder what her point was in airing this in an open forum where she has not exactly been a participant, herself.

If this is her decision, then sell the CD collection, don't attend the concerts, but why register once to say 'you've lost me as a fan and I'm not alone in my thoughts?' (paraphrashing there)

That makes no sense to me. Perhaps if Ms. Blumit knew Suzanne's reasons for standing up for what she believes in, she might not have had to dismiss herself, and could have continued to be the 'lifelong fan' that she was.

Catherine

* Yes, Kenny, that would be interesting to know—"but she's gone, gone, gone."

---

"If we don't change the direction we are headed,
we will end up where we are going."

—Chinese Proverb

Zoltan Szilagy (as he would be known in America) wrote:
Anyway, today we commemorate the start of the revolution -October 23, 1956.

Which would have gone much better had we Americans not encouraged them by promising military support for their struggle, and then quietly changed our mind. (It was only two weeks before the election, after all...)

A bit ironic to bring this subject up in this particular thread, since at least a portion of the mess we're embroiled in at the moment is thanks to a similar tactic employed by another Republican president a quarter-century later.

Bob wrote:

| It is unfortunate that you have limited your ability to appreciate timeless art | through your allegiance to a transient ideology.

Hear hear! Well said, Bob!

Some unnamed person wrote:

| Echoing fátima's sentiments—it IS sad that you seem unable to respect Suzanne's | choices, but the bright spot that comes from this, is that none of us will have to sit | next to you at her concerts anymore.

Saucer of milk, anyone?

Lefty wrote:

| They are perhaps too dim - like a certain contributor here

Politics does seem to bring out the worst in people ...

David wrote:

"It is rather suspicious Ruth Blumit only registered on here yesterday, but still a bit harsh to dismiss her completely."


Good point. Maybe the name "Blumit" will become popularly used as a verb, meaning "to publicly announce a boycott of an artist whom one shows no evidence of having supported in the past." As in: "That does it, Barry Manilow! I'm outraged that you won't admit that UFOs are real, so I'm Blumiting 'Mandy' and 'Copacabana' right into the trash shredder."

Undertow has been Blumited in the past. Some of the ugliest spats have been fueled here by irate messages from people who had rarely or never participated in the discussions in calmer times (prompting the immortal Bluey to once ask: "Who are you people?").

On the other hand, "Ruth" shows some familiarity with Suzanne's work (the Broward concert, "Men in a War"), so I doubt that she's some random Bush supporter who's just following orders she received on FreeRepublic.com. Another possibility is that she is a regular Towie who opposes Kerry or supports Bush and wanted to express her dismay, but feared being inundated with attacks from anti-Bush fanatics -- in which case she's showing considerably less courage than Suzanne has in speaking out in her own name.

Or maybe she has some pre-existing, real-world relationship with Suzanne that she doesn't want to damage by posting under her real identity.

Hmm ... has anyone heard from Ruby lately?

-- Bob, who doesn't mean to imply any familiarity with the work of Barry Manilow, and who doesn't even know what the Very Strange Medley is