Just to be clear, this is what real folk music sounds like without all the corporate propaganda and advertising, and its a very old song indeed despite how incredibly relevant it is to today, From what I understand generally the same issue effects all music. Corporations own basically everything, that includes music for the most part. How does this effect the music? Well, it becomes mostly about marketing and a chorus that sounds nice, but has essentially zero lyrical depth. It sounds nice, but means NOTHING (except for "buy buy buy"). They are also heavily promoting alcohol, and yes alcohol companies are indeed involved in this, its not an accident that most country and rock/rap music is about getting drunk. Its not just particular companies who are influencing this, the music itself is owned by giant corporations headed by rich white guys. All that rap music you hear you hate so much that you think is harming the black community? Some rich white guy owns all that, and yes you are right it is indeed harming the black community but modern country music is also harming the white community, the poor white community that is. Here is an article going into a bit of detail of this happening in rap music, https://www.theatlantic.com/busines...-ad-when-hip-hop-first-went-corporate/390930/ For example, it talks about how alcohol companies were directly and openly targeting poor minority neighborhoods. We blame the black community for having a liquor store on every corner and the type of music they listen to, but who owns all of this? Its rich white dudes at the top of a corporation who put that liquor store on every corner and promote these horrible morals non-stop on TV and in music so they can make more money. Yes, bourgeois blacks are also involved, just like they were also involved in the slave trade, but this does not absolve the other side of guilt. Im not saying whites are more guilty than blacks, im saying rich whites and rich blacks are to blame, the bourgeois. Spoiler: Summary "Today—when Dr. Dre is an Apple executive, Jay-Z has partnered with Samsung on an album release, and Snoop Dogg has appeared in Chrysler commercials. . . In 1988, the San Francisco-based McKenzie River Corporation launched its St. Ides hip-hop ad campaign. At the time, the targeted marketing of malt liquor to black and Hispanic communities was nothing new. As an American consumer product, malt liquor dates back to the World War II era, when it was marketed mostly to white consumers, but developments in the alcohol industry broadened what could work as a viable target demographic. In the 1970s, America’s beer industry experienced a tide of consolidation as various regional breweries gave way to a smaller number of national producers with a larger reach. This came about in a post-Civil Rights-era landscape in which more big-name companies were starting to target African American consumers. (Brands such as Budweiser were already advertising in black publications in the early 60s). In the 80s, producers in the consolidated beer industry seized on malt liquor, which could be sold especially cheaply when produced in large quantities. To marketers, low prices and lower-than-average disposable incomes in minority communities were a natural match. “Malt liquor … has become the drink of choice among many in the inner city,” wrote reporter Marc Lacey in a 1992 Los Angeles Times article about the marketing of alcohol in inner cities. “It is heavily discounted in black and Latino neighborhoods nationwide, and promotions coyly—and sometimes not so coyly—plug its potency.” In those days, when brewers advertised malt liquor to black people, they would usually display beautiful models in print spreads and employ black celebrities like Richard Roundtree, Fred “The Hammer” Williamson, Redd Foxx, and Billy Dee Williams. Williams’ Colt .45 spots—which included his image and the slogan “Works every time”—became an 80s pop-culture touchstone. Consumerist cynics might have looked at malt-liquor marketing much like the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith viewed cigarette advertising in his 1952 book American Capitalism, in which he wrote that “the very instrument which once rewarded the community with lower prices and greater efficiency now turns up assailing its ear with rhymed commercials … and rendering the countryside with hideous commercial art.” The marketing of malt liquor had enough momentum gathered by the end of the 80s to colonize hip-hop as a new decade beckoned. “As a kid, you’re walking around, singing these songs and basically endorsing these liquor and spirit products,” says Aaron Paxton Arnold, the CEO of MusicIsMyBusiness, a brand-management consultancy. “You don’t know what it is, but you just know that it’s cool because it sounds good.” Having recorded the Public Enemy track “One Million Bottlebags” that year to protest malt liquor’s pervasiveness in the black community, Chuck D, unsurprisingly, wasn’t thrilled about his voice being used to hawk St. Ides, and promptly filed a $5 million lawsuit against McKenzie River that was eventually settled out of court. Later that year, McKenzie River was sued by (and ultimately settled with) the New York State Attorney General’s Office for ads allegedly targeting underage minority children. Also, it was fined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, which proceeded to shut down the company’s operations for three days. (Activists and authorities perhaps gave malt liquor special scrutiny because its percentage of alcohol by volume is more than that of most beers.) McKenzie River may have pushed the limits of propriety with its ads, but legally, nothing stopped the campaign from proceeding. Exavier Pope, a Chicago-based attorney who specializes in entertainment and intellectual-property issues, says that there isn't any legal precedent explicitly banning an ad campaign like this—one that is targeted at a particular community in a way that some in that community perceive to be harmful. Many weren’t pleased that a product with an above-average percentage of alcohol by volume was being marketed heavily to minority communities with disparities in income, diet, and healthcare. “Do I think Ice Cube telling people to get tested for AIDS is a good thing? Yeah, it would help,” says TJ Crawford, the city manager at the African-American lifestyle publication Rolling Out and a longtime activist in Chicago’s hip-hop circles. “But that positive message wasn’t promoted the same in comparison to the economic message of ‘Buy Malt Liquor.’” “It fuels consumerism and materialism, which is often felt most keenly by those who can least afford to buy the brands.” I have seen plenty of those on the Right Wing who despise the corporate takeover of their country, hopefully those on the Right with that anti-corporate attitude can understand where im coming from here even though we may disagree on how to fix the issue. JakeJ linked me a country song with like 26million views, it was a typical country song about guns, beer, and nationalism. The top comments are exactly what id expect from such a corporate song, for example this is one of the top 5 comments on the "country boys can survive" song by Hank Williams, "I'm not racist, but I have no guilt or shame for being both proud to be white and American. I talked to my friend living in the UK now and he says they're being overrun by non-white foreigners such as middle easterners that are overcrowding, overrunning the social systems such as welfare and schools, hospitals and jails and diluting the European way of life rather quickly and those ppl are fixin' to come here next in mass numbers and erode our way of life soon too many so he say'd to try to prepare in the country fashion. With Trump being elected instead of Hillary we may still have a fighting chance to survive." This is blatantly racist (despite the fact she of course says its not racist ), and if you dont believe me this is one of the top 5 comments on a country song with 26 million views I can take a screenshot and show you, but you all know its true you have all seen these types of comments everywhere too, dont pretend you havent. That is what you get with corporate propaganda music, advertising and nationalism. You see all those corporations who say "We support the troops!" you think some random corporation really supports the troops? Like Walmart? No, its an advertising to sell to blind Nationalists and it works very well, its the exact same concept in country music, the nationalism is simply there to bolster the advertising. Here is a couple more country/folk songs without all the corporate propaganda so you can get the idea of what im talking about, and no you wont find a single comment on songs like this about how the white race is being killed off by middle easterners or any of that stupid **** you see on corporate country music videos. I always hated country/folk music growing up, I grew up on old early 90's rap music and still listen to that mostly, but there are a few country/folk songs I absolutely love with all my heart and this is one more of those. Interestingly, this song is called "which side are you on?" and was uploaded to youtube in 2008 but has a picture of Donald Trump when talking about the workers vs the owners lol. To be fair, it also has a giant scary image of Hillary Clinton behind Walmart which is just as fitting to the song lol
