ABBA can't keep Trump from digging the 'Dancing Queen'
"The Winner Takes It All"? Not if ABBA can help it. The Swedish supergroup demanded that Donald Trump stop using its music at his rallies, further decreeing that any campaign footage released with ABBA's music in it must be “immediately removed” from the internet.Then again, don't we make art in order to transcend ourselves? Isn't the goal to make something that speaks to people across barriers of time, space, culture, and, yes, ideology? ABBA is just the latest musical group to complain about popping up on Trump's mega MAGA mix. The Foo Fighters recently slammed the campaign for using “My Hero” at a recent rally in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed the former POTUS. (Team Trump says it had permission.) These artists join a long line of cranky crooners trying to turn off the music, including Celine Dion, the Beatles, Elton John, Queen, Phil Collins, the estate of Sinéad O'Connor, Adele, REM, and the Rolling Stones.Good luck with that.The United States allows campaigns to get a Political Entities License via the performance rights organization Broadcast Music Inc. This collects royalties for artists and hosts a giant catalog of more than 20 million songs. The case for an artist denying this license over political disagreements is dubious at best.Some musicians have pulled it off, however. On September 3, a judge ruled in favor of the Isaac Hayes estate, issuing a preliminary injunction to stop Donald Trump from playing the Sam and Dave classic “Hold On I’m Coming" (Hayes cowrote the song) as well as any other music by Hayes. Old videos using the song, however, may remain up. Hayes’ son Isaac Hayes III praised the ruling as "an opportunity for other artists to come forward that don’t want their music used by Donald Trump or other political entities.”Bruce Springsteen took a sneakier route. Rather than pursuing legal action against Trump’s use of “Born in the USA,” Springsteen very publicly flaunted his support of Hillary Clinton in 2016, causing his song to be booed at Trump rallies and essentially unplayable among MAGA crowds. Others, such as the Foo Fighters, have taken the approach of donating royalties from the BMI plays to Trump opponent Kamala Harris.Such a head-on approach to boycotting politicians or public figures an artist dislikes can easily backfire. In late 2020, after years of melodramatic, high-minded statements about Trump's morally objectionable use of "Rockin' in the Free World," Neil Young finally sued him in August 2020. He quietly dropped the suit three months later, suggesting that perhaps the extensive public bloviating, rather than protecting his music, was the point.In 2022, Young infamously reacted to Spotify's deal with Joe Rogan by pulling all his music off the site. Once he'd enjoyed another moment of media adulation, Young's concern over Rogan's COVID "misinformation" campaign failed to match his desire to keep those fat royalty checks coming. He returned his catalog to Spotify in the spring of this year, acting as if his sanctimonious display of virtue signaling had never even happened. Of course, artists like Young are fighting a losing battle. Artists have always struggled with fans interpreting their songs the "wrong" way; for example, "Born in the USA" has been used as a patriotic anthem for 30 years now. The digital age has exacerbated this tendency; nowadays, we can enjoy a song without knowing (or caring to know) anything about the person who made it. That artists should be anxious about this loss of status is understandable. Then again, don't we make art in order to transcend ourselves? Isn't the goal to make something that speaks to people across barriers of time, space, culture, and, yes, ideology? If you wrote a song so undeniably good that people across the political spectrum can't resist it, congratulations. You've done your job — and maybe even helped our polarized country find a little common ground. There are worse ways to make a living.
"The Winner Takes It All"?
Not if ABBA can help it. The Swedish supergroup demanded that Donald Trump stop using its music at his rallies, further decreeing that any campaign footage released with ABBA's music in it must be “immediately removed” from the internet.
Then again, don't we make art in order to transcend ourselves? Isn't the goal to make something that speaks to people across barriers of time, space, culture, and, yes, ideology?
ABBA is just the latest musical group to complain about popping up on Trump's mega MAGA mix.
The Foo Fighters recently slammed the campaign for using “My Hero” at a recent rally in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsed the former POTUS. (Team Trump says it had permission.)
These artists join a long line of cranky crooners trying to turn off the music, including Celine Dion, the Beatles, Elton John, Queen, Phil Collins, the estate of Sinéad O'Connor, Adele, REM, and the Rolling Stones.
Good luck with that.
The United States allows campaigns to get a Political Entities License via the performance rights organization Broadcast Music Inc. This collects royalties for artists and hosts a giant catalog of more than 20 million songs. The case for an artist denying this license over political disagreements is dubious at best.
Some musicians have pulled it off, however. On September 3, a judge ruled in favor of the Isaac Hayes estate, issuing a preliminary injunction to stop Donald Trump from playing the Sam and Dave classic “Hold On I’m Coming" (Hayes cowrote the song) as well as any other music by Hayes. Old videos using the song, however, may remain up.
Hayes’ son Isaac Hayes III praised the ruling as "an opportunity for other artists to come forward that don’t want their music used by Donald Trump or other political entities.”
Bruce Springsteen took a sneakier route. Rather than pursuing legal action against Trump’s use of “Born in the USA,” Springsteen very publicly flaunted his support of Hillary Clinton in 2016, causing his song to be booed at Trump rallies and essentially unplayable among MAGA crowds.
Others, such as the Foo Fighters, have taken the approach of donating royalties from the BMI plays to Trump opponent Kamala Harris.
Such a head-on approach to boycotting politicians or public figures an artist dislikes can easily backfire. In late 2020, after years of melodramatic, high-minded statements about Trump's morally objectionable use of "Rockin' in the Free World," Neil Young finally sued him in August 2020. He quietly dropped the suit three months later, suggesting that perhaps the extensive public bloviating, rather than protecting his music, was the point.
In 2022, Young infamously reacted to Spotify's deal with Joe Rogan by pulling all his music off the site. Once he'd enjoyed another moment of media adulation, Young's concern over Rogan's COVID "misinformation" campaign failed to match his desire to keep those fat royalty checks coming.
He returned his catalog to Spotify in the spring of this year, acting as if his sanctimonious display of virtue signaling had never even happened.
Of course, artists like Young are fighting a losing battle. Artists have always struggled with fans interpreting their songs the "wrong" way; for example, "Born in the USA" has been used as a patriotic anthem for 30 years now.
The digital age has exacerbated this tendency; nowadays, we can enjoy a song without knowing (or caring to know) anything about the person who made it. That artists should be anxious about this loss of status is understandable.
Then again, don't we make art in order to transcend ourselves? Isn't the goal to make something that speaks to people across barriers of time, space, culture, and, yes, ideology?
If you wrote a song so undeniably good that people across the political spectrum can't resist it, congratulations. You've done your job — and maybe even helped our polarized country find a little common ground. There are worse ways to make a living.
Originally Published at Daily Wire, World Net Daily, or The Blaze
What's Your Reaction?
