You can’t separate the man from the music:
Someone should assign Miller, Fusilli, and Bruce Springsteen to read in its entirety Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago. Perhaps, then, they would come to understand the cause that Pete Seeger’s championing of unions, civil rights, and environmentalism was really intended to serve.
The idea of using music and the arts more generally to subvert allegiance to this country and to make Americans thoroughly ashamed of a history that is for the most part admirable, the idea of using music and the arts more generally to undermine the principles that make this country prosperous and free, and the idea of using music and the arts to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a thuggish, populist, kleptocratic dictatorship here — that is Peter Seeger’s legacy, and it is, alas, enduring.
And David Goldman thinks that the music was his greatest sin:
Seeger’s (and Guthrie’s) notion of folk music had less to do with actual American sources than with a Communist-inspired Yankee version of Proletkult. The highly personalized style of a Robert Johnson and other Delta bluesmen didn’t belong in the organizing handbook of the “folk” exponents who grew up in the Communist Party’s failed efforts to control the trade union movement of the 1940s. The music of the American people grew out of their churches. Their instrument was the piano, not the guitar, and their style was harmonized singing of religious texts rather than the nasal wailing that Guthrie made famous. Seeger, the son of an academic musicologist and a classical violinist, was no mountain primitive, but a slick commercializer of “folk” themes with a nasty political agenda. His capacity to apologize for the brutalities of Communist regimes — including their repression of their own “folksingers” — remained undiminished with age, as David Graham reported in the Atlantic.
I’m willing to forgive Seeger his Stalinism. Some of my most-admired artists were Stalinists, for example, Bertolt Brecht, whose rendition of his own “Song of the Unattainability of Human Striving” from The Threepenny Opera is the funniest performance of the funniest song of the 20th century. I can’t forgive him his musical fraud: the mind-deadening, saccharine, sentimental appeal to the lowest common denominator of taste in his signature songs — “I Had a Hammer,” “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?,” and so forth. Bob Dylan (of whom I’m not much of a fan) rescued himself from the bathos by poisoning the well of sentimentality with irony. His inheritance is less Dylan than the odious Peter, Paul and Mary.
I liked Peter, Paul and Mary as a kid, but the point is taken.
The standard story about Dylan is that he angered folk music purists when he started playing electric rock & roll at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965.
That’s not quite what happened. The truth is that he angered Leftists by leaving the Left a year earlier. That was an unforgivable betrayal. While he first achieved fame by writing “protest songs”, his music became largely apolitical starting in 1964. Leftist folkies started referring to him with such charming epithets as “sellout”, “traitor”, and “Judas”.
Full disclosure: I’m a huge Dylan fan.
Everyone’s a critic.
Someone should assign Miller, Fusilli, and Bruce Springsteen to read in its entirety Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago.
I’d bet my life savings that Al Stewart has read it. Here’s his 1973 masterpiece, “Roads to Moscow”:
Roads to Moscow
It’s sung from the point of view of a Russian soldier on the Eastern Front in WW2. Pay close attention to the last verse.
Great song, thanks for the link.
Is it possible to admire someone’s work and hate his politics? Yes, it is.