Stop using our songs: musicians who hit out at politicians using their music
- Wonjeong Hong
- Jan 9
- 3 min read
Updated: Feb 5
Article Summary
The article explores the case where the original song owners opposed the political use of their songs in specific parties. It begins by introducing how D:Ream, a northern Irish pop band, banned Labour from using a track called "Things Can Only Get Better". Toward the response of D:Ream, Ed Gillet argued how the song’s lyrics aligned with New Labour’s 1997 campaign theme. In this case, there have been multiple occasions when songs such as Abba’s “Dancing Queen” and M people’s “Moving On Up” were politically used without consent.
Some musicians are more direct and rigid about forbidding politicians from using their songs. For example, a lead guitarist of The Smiths, Johnny Marr, once even posted that David Cameron did not like his song on social media in 2010. He also intensely disliked Trump and Republicans for using his band’s song during rallies. The political usage of songs usually requires permission from their original owners. The fact that approval of the music’s copyright holders is needed for a song to be played or performed in public is clearly shown in the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988.
PPL, which is the UK’s music licensing company for more than 140,000 performers that started in 1934, excludes the music “used as an introduction to, during or otherwise closely connected with the presentation of any political announcement, including keynote speeches during political party conferences and campaigns,” under the clause of prohibiting “derogatory use.” The people who applied to use the song must get permission from the record companies before the PPL issues the rule violation.
Reflection
Reading this article as a guitarist of the school band and part of the music community, I could relate to how musicians would have felt from their songs being used in an unwanted way. I believe that art loses its true meaning when it has a clear answer or “correct” way of interpretation. The uncertainty and the possibility make art and music truly valuable.
However, when it is used politically , the meaning and depth of the art become truly shallower and limited. The capture of the emotion in the moment forever left as a “message” in the world. If the artist has apparent political beliefs and how politicians use their songs aligns with their opinions, it could be considered honorable for them. Nevertheless, it does not change that it will shorten the song’s lifespan as a form of "art."
Furthermore, how Ed Gillet argued D:Ream that the Labour's use of Things Can Only Get Better was justifiable, pointing out that the lyrics felt disrespectful. No matter whether the mood or the meanings that the song seems to contain on the surface are similar to the direction of the campaign, the opinion of the original creator should be prioritized. Suppose artists or musicians refuse to be used as a tool for political propaganda or promotion. Politicians should listen to and accept their opinions because it is their natural right as creators.
As I believe that art is maintained as art without losing its meaning and that the opinion of the original creator or copyright owner is essential regarding song usage, I support how PPL prohibits the derogatory use of music and the Copyright, Designs, and Patents Act 1988. It prevents the song's message from being distorted and the musician's intellectual property from being misused. I hope the public and politicians understand how music has a more profound property than what they think and respect the rights and opinions of the musicians more.
Comments