TS: Arthur vs. Godsmack

When your album is number one, and you sell your music to the military, and you put a frickin' helicopter shooting missles at the audience at the beginning of your show, I think you deserve someone calling you out on your mealy-mouthed BS. Way to go, Jay.

Every single "liberal" artist who dares to criticize Bush or the military ends up on the front page of the Drudge Report, and called a traitor, etc. This is just a little payback, and it's way overdue.

Does it "CHANGE THINGS, MAN"? No, it just helps round up the Godsmack fans all over the internet in support of the band, and gets the Godsmack haters all over the internet to discover what Arthur is, albeit through something atypical for them.

Both sides get publicity. Both sides win. Kids still dying in Iraq. Everyone's happy!

Every single "liberal" artist of the few that are doing very well today and current media gives a shit about who dares to criticize Bush or the military ends up on the front page of the Drudge Report, and called a traitor, etc. This is just a little payback, and it's way overdue.

If i was interviewing the guy, i would not be so baldly hostile. I
would try to recognize that many of the people to whom Erna speaks to
go into the armed forces because they do not have the same
opportunities that your average Arthur reader has (most
likely)—regardless of whether they are sent off to die for the worst
foreign policy directive of my lifetime.

Which is to say— i wish I felt that babcock's interview demeanor was
animated more by the stated anti-war conviction than contempt for a
working class rock star on a major label who has never heard of Jandek
or Islands or whoevah…

I wasn't asking for a banal NPR style debate or anything, but something that wasn't so fucking condescending would have been a vast improvement.

Go Arthur!

Well, NOW it's obvious. I don't think it was that obvious until this interview, although certainly suspect.

Hahaha I can't believe people's sensibilities are offended by this. Poor Godsmack guy! Shilling for war is something no artist should get away with, "Southie" or otherwise.

Go Arthur!

Just speaking for myself, my "sensibilities" are just extremely disappointed in the manner in which the Godsmack guy got smacked, essentially.. as it really does nothing but polarize, and -- if anything -- helps the band even more.. as I hypothesized above.

Lemmy's probably written more antiwar songs than any other metal act, and Motorhead had a bomber hovering over them onstage for years.

im not doubting the relevancy of such a piece because i do feel people should be questioned about this but... taking godsmack to task for their pro-militaristic tendencies is like shooting a fish in a barrel. i dont see arthur getting on cocorosie's case for throwing around n-bombs in their songs or asking random indie rockers about their trust funds, but i guess that would be really striking a nerve if they -- god forbid -- exposed the oft-hypocritical stance of underground/alternative/independent music. i bet they'd lose a slew of ad revenue then.

that sounds suspiciously like "the godsmack guy, being a 'southie', is therefore too stupid to defend his views/actions." sounds like yer taking down a "southie" there.

(not that babcock isn't an uppermiddleclass hipster -- but the interview isn't a class bash)

It's hard for me to feel sorry for a guy who pulled down at LEAST a few hundred thousand dollars from the military, and even "re-upped" (in his words) the contract, even though he seems uncomfortable with the Iraq war. In a way, it would even be different if the Godsmack fellow actually supported the war, but it seems like he doesn't, and is willing to take big bucks anyway (but not from Maybelline). If the worst thing he has to endure is Jay asking him some angry questions, I think he'll be ok.

The stuff i said afterwards indicates that at least I'd try to explore other implications of SE and his relationship to his audience, and not be completely hostile from the get-go. as an interviewer, your cards should be on the table.

again, Erna has never struck me as a very bright guy, and I agree that it doesn't seem too much to ask for artists to be present professionally and be able to defend how their music is used. and it may be that JB does not reflexively dismiss mainstream rock guys. but a lot of writers do, and i think that disliking their music and the corporate means by which the music is distributed is often intermixed with "this is the kind of guy that called me a fag in high school" or "this guy may be millionaire, but i went to grad school" or suchlike…

what I mean by this is that the interview situation should be a level playing field—not that yr agenda should be transparent, in which case JB's cards were on the table.

also: Godsmack's publicist was foolish in allowing this interview to take place.

i don't think he was being completely hostile; he just asked se to explain the band's relationship to the military. se couldn't back up, much less explain in basic terms, his own actions and statements.

lmao

forgot this is a country built on WAR...it's what we do. Hell we've even fought ourselves and a war on drugs! It's what this country does best. You don't become a superpower by standing idly by. We have choosen to help those countries in need, and if you wern't some punk white kid, you might see the appreciation other countries show for us. But it's alright just keep wearing, listening to and acting how the media tells you too. ok?

What does that have to do with anything? Is that what this is about? Just rockers licensing their songs? The left gets upset about that? Did not know that.

Screaming inane points at people who will never understand them in our cult zines has done us immense good as well.

Using the tried, failed, and tired counterargument that the left's only alternative to failed argumentatitive/political strategies is to "shut up" has done the left a lot of good as well.

Sadly, many lefties have shut up out of choice -- not out of force.

(The interview was good, though Babcock got too flustered at the end and went over the top. But when a band does something stupid, they should expect to get called out on doing something stupid. I'd read Rolling Stone if they did this sort of thing.)

Still, I agree with the impulse: Godsmack dude has agreed to let his music encourage people to join the army, and he ought to be pressed to answer the question directly, not talk about "supporting the troops" - he's not "supporting the troops," he's helping the government make more troops to replace the dead ones

when? which pieces?

sorry, no examples to give, teacher.

If this is any indication of what Rolling Stone was in the 60s (I don't know), then fair point about Arthur. I just think this particular piece was very UN-Arthur, which was the first thing that came to mind. I've read a couple of issues of Arthur, and O'Reilly-esque the writers/interviewers are NOT.

No.

Listen to the conversation for yourself. We've posted it on YouTube. The link is available via the arthurmag.com/magpie page.

http://www.apolloaudio.com/lt.asp?name=AA32

Also, here's some more Sully remarks from January 2003...

MTV News - Fat Joe, 3 Doors Down, Godsmack Speak Out About War In Iraq - JANUARY 22, 2003

As President Bush sends more and more troops to the Middle East for a potential military operation to oust Saddam Hussein, an increasing number of artists are speaking their minds. And it’s not just the usual suspects like Bono, Chuck D and Michael Stipe.

…

Some artists, like Fat Joe, don’t believe the Bush administration’s assertion that Iraq poses a threat to the U.S. “It’s all over oil,” the rapper insisted. “The president comes from an oil-driven family, [and Saddam Hussein] is the same guy who [his father] tried to kill when he was president. We entrust our president to not be biased and … not [have] personal beef. I think this is personal beef.”

Others argue that even if Saddam Hussein doesn’t pose an immediate threat, he eventually will, and the problem is better solved now than later.

“Unfortunately, there were some really bad things that happened [involving the Middle East], and I think if we don’t cut out the cancer while it’s still young, then it’s gonna grow to be this entity that we may not be able to defend ourselves against,” Godsmack frontman Sully Erna said, pulling a page from the quote book of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. “I applaud the government and President Bush for doing what they’re doing, and I think our military are some of the bravest souls, much braver than I could ever be.”

…

As Audioslave guitarist Tom Morello pointed out, though, not being the good guy has so far included the killing of thousands of civilians in Afghanistan. The Iraq issue is a convenient way to distract people from our failure there, he said.

“One of the reasons the Bush administration is making so much noise about Iraq is because it has failed to do anything about the al Qaeda network,” Morello said. “When was the last time you heard the word ‘Afghanistan’ in the news? It was a country the U.S. carpet bombed into a lunar landscape to try to get one dude and didn’t do such a good job. They killed 20,000 civilians ? men, women and children who had nothing to do with the Taliban or al Qaeda ? and failed to achieve their objectives. Also, going to war is a convenient way to cover up the Enron scandal, the president’s horrible vocabulary, the fact that 40 million Americans are living below the poverty line and 50 million don’t have any sort of health care.”

Rapper DMC agreed that there plenty of domestic issues to be tended to. “Our government needs to mind their business,” he said. “We try to force our help [on others] when we should focus on fixing the problems here first.”

Besides, he said, “I don’t think we have the right to go over there and tell them what to do. Would we want someone telling us what to do?”

Ice-T, for one, doesn’t want anyone telling him what to do. Especially if it involves putting on a uniform and shipping off overseas. “I think the mandatory draft is the closest thing you can come to slavery,” he said, referring to recent talk in Washington about reactivating the program. “Being able to tell somebody they gotta do something and potentially die, that’s scary to me.”

…

“I really love my girlfriend, and I really love my country, and I really love everyone who’s in my life,” Nickelback singer Chad Kroeger said. “And if there are some f—ing a–holes anywhere with the ability to launch a weapon of mass destruction and hurt any of those things that I love or anybody anywhere, then that’s a problem that has to be dealt with.

“Everybody’s sitting around going, ‘Oh, don’t go to war, don’t go to war,’ ” he continued. “Well, we’re going to war for a reason: Saddam Hussein is a madman. If there would have been any nuclear capability on any of the Scud missiles he launched [during the Gulf War], do you think he would have not done it? He would have done it in a heartbeat. That absolutely terrifies me.”

But as Morello pointed out, there’s a chance that war against Iraq would make Americans more of a target than ever for terrorists.

“This military adventurism could potentially have a horrific boomerang effect and whip up a cycle of violence that no one can see the end to,” he said. “If Bush’s real goal is to make the world a safer place, the real way to fight terrorism is to deal with the underlying issues of conflict and inequality in the Middle East and around the world, and not carpet bombing any country that doesn’t do our bidding.”

After Sully hung up on me, I called back. The band's publicist, Ken Phillips, told me that Sully had emerged from the room shouting at the top of his lungs, and he wasn't sure if he could get him back on the phone with me so that we could talk about the album, Wicca, karma -- all interests of Sully's -- that I had hoped to explore. Two days later I was told by Phillips that there would be no further interviewing and the band would rather the feature not run.

Why?

Who knows? Perhaps it's the way Sully characterizes people who join the military as guys who want to jump out of helicopters and shoot people and use infrared goggles. That doesn't really jibe well with them being "brave souls" or honorable freedom-prtoecting people, does it?

Perhaps it has to do with Sully's attitude towards the Navy's recruiting efforts. Essentially he is saying that the Navy wasted their money by licensing Godsmack music for their advertisements, since the music has no influence/impact -- none, zero -- on the viewers.

And so on.

I suppose to a degree it's like shooting fish in a barrel, but... lives are on the line. People need to be held accountable. I've been trying to interview this band since 2003. I finally got my chance. It's stimulated a ton of discussion -- check out blabbermouth.net's various thread, or the number of blogs and rock news sites that are now picking this up -- and it's embarassed the band into silence on the issue, which is better than the jingoism they'd been spouting previously.

Finally: these guys are millionaires. They're using their music to help recruit poor, under-educated, foolish, impressionable kids into the military at a time of worthless, pointless war, the consequences of which we -- all of us -- will be feeling for the rest of our lives. Fuck them.

As I recall, Jay Babcock was an early supporter of the White Stripes, Now Jack White is a millionaire rock star, shilling for Coca-Cola, one of the most notorious corporations on the planet. I'd really love to see Jay (or anyone else) ask Jack White about his involvement with Coca-Cola, subjecting him to this level of intense questioning. Does he know about the union leaders being murdered in Colombia? About the situation with the water supply in India? About the obesity epidemic which finds soft drinks replacing bread as the number one caloric source of the american diet? Lives are on the line, but does Jack White give a shit about any of these things? Enterprising interviewers would find the recent cover article from The Nation is a good introduction to the issues at hand.

Well, but that's the sticking point here for me - and I want to say, I did love the interview. But the lamentably mature version of myself asks: "What's the goal? What does 'holding him accountable' accomplish?" For one thing, it's probably cemented his view that anti-war people are really hostile to him, and has thereby further entrenched his pro-war position. It's clear, though, from parts of the transcript, that one might have planted some seeds of questions in Godsmack dude's mind: about the scope of the human tragedy, about whether we've actually done any good over there. Again, that wouldn't have made for a hotly-forwarded link. But the guy might have wondered, over time, about his stance, and that's how shit gets accomplished - all the interview accomplishes in the end is some cheering from people who already agree with the interviewer's premise.

So umm yeah the "hotly-forwarded link" to which I'm referring in the post above is the interview which you then point out is much-forwarded. My point is, the interview style ensures much forwarding of the link, but probably doesn't persuade anybody of the righteousness of the anti-war cause, which would be a nobler end.

No need to get defensive, man. How many times I gotta say "I loved the fucking interview" before you stop sounding all "MY WORK IS VALID" an' shit? I'm just pointing out (and I think I'm hardly unique in this perspective) that you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar. Here are what seem the key lines from your afterword, which I'd already read already (an afterward to a piece which, I feel like I need to keep pointing this out so you don't get all aggro, I enjoyed a great deal):

I suppose to a degree it’s like shooting fish in a barrel, but… lives are on the line. People need to be held accountable. I’ve been trying to interview this band since 2003. I finally got my chance. It’s stimulated a ton of discussion — check out blabbermouth.net’s various threads, or the number of blogs and rock news sites that are now picking this up, or the comments below, or the endless barrage of juvenile hatemail we’ve been receiving — and it’s embarassed the band into silence on the issue, which is better than the jingoism they’d been spouting previously.

Finally: Please keep in mind that Sully is a MILLIONAIRE living in a comfortable life. His band is using their music to help recruit poor, under-educated, foolish, impressionable kids into the military at a time of worthless, pointless war, the consequences of which we — all of us — will be feeling for the rest of our lives. If he doesn’t care to discuss this — all of this — he shouldn’t do interviews… especially with anti-war publications.

My questions:

1) do you honestly believe that the discussion generated by this sort of interview will change even one mind?
1a) if the answer is "maybe not," then what is the value?
2) Did you actually attempt to "discuss" the matter with him (I'm coming here off your line "if he doesn't care to discuss this...he shouldn't do interviews"), or did you just score a lot of quick points? An anti-war position such as your own should extend further into your behavior: treating the guy with respect might actually have opened his mind up a little.

As it stands: awesome, you've exposed a douchebag. I would humbly submit that turning a douchebag into an ally would have been a nobler pursuit.

Maybe you'll have better luck converting a pro-war millionaire to an anti-war activist in 10 minutes on the phone.

is this a challenge to us all or a dodge?

Your "yes" to question two seems rather hasty. I've listened to & read the interview. You set a trap, rather artfully & cleverly, and then moved in for the kill. You might as easily have started out: "Your stuff's been used to promote the military lately. Are you in favor of the war in Iraq?" or any number of other cards-on-the-table opening gambits. You would thereby have been manning up something fierce, since you would have been modeling the exact sort of honesty you're demanding from your subject. Instead, you went for the laffs. You didn't try to engage him in discussion at all; you set him up, he got defensive, it made for a great & fun interview. Its value remains questionable.

And again, nobody - least of all me - is suggesting you could have "converted" this dude. What I say above, pretty clearly at that, is: the guy might have wondered, over time, about his stance, and that's how shit gets accomplished.

Another way of putting this: how many times have you changed your mind about something because somebody yelled at you about it? Care to give examples? I could be wrong here; maybe a guy hollering at you makes you say to yourself, "gee, maybe I'm wrong." As for me, though, the second somebody starts yelling at me, I stop listening. Why bother listening to someone who's just berating me? I strongly suspect that most people are this way, and that most people get their minds changed by persuasive arguments, not by harangues, and that instant conversion of a person's opinion only happens in evangelical fantasies. In real life, you share ideas, and if they're good, they take root. Yelling at somebody isn't sharing ideas. It's just noise.

1. He already said he was in favor of the war in Iraq. Read the endnotes.
2. I didn't go for laffs.
3. He ended the conversation, not me.

I'm not happy with how the interview went; I wish I'd had been granted the time alloted to me, and he hadn't started swearing at me. But, please: you're monday-morning quarterbacking here. I did the best I could. What have you done regarding countering the military's recruting tactics? Please share. My magazine has done plenty in the last 3.5 years, and has more in the works.

The interview transcript was posted NOT because I wanted to show off some awesome lasso technique -- all I did was ask bonehead-obvious questions, people -- but because if we DIDN'T post the whole transcript, we knew there would be the inevitable 'Arthur took Sully's comments out of context." Same thing for putting the audio online. I'm not happy about having my lame voice out there for everybody to hear, but geez...posting the convo online in audio form seemed to be the best way to pre-empt any accusations that this transcript was somehow fabricated or un-representative of the conversation. I'm sorry I'm not Socrates. I'm trying to get better, though! Thanks for your input dudes. Seriously.

he only listens to war metal with headphones on.

"That interview will circulate through word-of-mouth long after the blog dies down, I'm sure. "Oh, Godsmack? You shoulda read this interview where Sully self-destructs..." . For every biter on a blog, there are 9 new fans [of Arthur]. But what's best about these sorts of sitations is that eventually the debate centers on the real issues, and people can't go to sleep at night without their dreams being haunted by the truth, no matter how much their conscious mind wants to delete their conscience."

And again - how many times do I gotta say this? here, lemme boldface it for you: I dug the interview. I thought it made for a great read. I am not upbraiding you for interviewing badly nor nuffin like that. I agree with you philosophically. I also think you're kidding yourself if you think you'll win over any new people to the anti-war cause with that kind of approach, and I think history bears me out on this one. What you call "Monday morning quarterbacking" I call "discussing issues the interview raises, which is does to all our benefit, since I believe in the value of discussion." You evidently do not believe in the value of discussion; you get really defensive, ask "what have you done" instead of addressing the actual issues we're talking about. In a way, on this thread, you're doing exactly what dude from Godsmack did in your interview with him: not really listening or responding, just feeling threatened & coming back with your best shots.

I enjoy Arthur & read it regularly and am not criticizing your magazine, nor you personally, nor deriding the interview. I am raising a question. You do not seem to actually be very interested in examining this question. That's fine; you should just say so, though, instead of trying to change the subject.

x-post - while I'm moved by your friend's conviction, I'd be a bit more persuaded by somebody who didn't already dig you/agree with you!

"JAY: So I notice you guys have been really involved with promoting the military. [1]

SULLY: Well, they actually came to us, believe it or not. Somebody in the Navy loves this band, because they used ‘Awake’ for three years and then they came to us and re-upped the contract for another three years for ‘Sick of Life.’ So, I don’t know. They just feel like that music, [laughs] someone in that place thinks that the music is very motivating for recruit commercials I guess. And hey, I’m an American boy so it’s not… I’m proud of it."

this is urgent and key, I think

Scott, I disagree with you. I think the exact questions Jay wants to raise are good. I just there's a way of going about it that doesn't cause the guy to wanna hang up the phone, and that might actually make him think.

"JAY: You’re proud of recruiting your fans into the military?"

and this just sets up the antagonistic tone of the rest of it. i do think there are ways to get people to talk about stuff without making them so defensive and angry. it's hard though. especially when that's ALL you want to talk about and dude just wants to plug his new album.

Yes, dude just wants to plug his album. But if I'd asked him about Wicca, or about the meaning of the band's name, or about how he confessed his infidelities to his wife recently, or how he stopped smoking cigs, I also would not have been talking about the album but I would've received answers/discusssion. That's expected. The publicist said to me that they were doing press to discuss their new album and what they'd been up to in the last few years since their previous album. Those were the parameters. My questions fell squarely withiin those parameters.

i say this with all due respect, this was not good journalism. by maximum rock & roll standards, it was okay.

re: Amy Goodman. I have never heard her show, although I (of course) know who she is.

Did we get any shock revelations here? Given how many people have commented on it, how many people have posted it, etc, I guess so.

I tried to interview this guy for the LAWeekly back in 2004 when they were playing the Forum. The editor at the time didn't understand how big this band was, or what they had done, even though it had been reported in his own paper, and the opportunity passed. Now, the Weekly is running this transcript on their frontpage. Go figure.

http://downwithtyranny.blogspot.com/

Practically speaking, Britain has no shortage of journalists -- print, radio and TV -- who are toadies to power and who simply act as enthusiastic stenographers to whatever the official cant of the day is. I became aquainted with some at the London Sunday Times and a couple other big dailies. They certainly have no need to take a backseat to their US colleagues. On the other hand, US journalists who don't cower before their subjects aren't that rare a bird.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILlcN8eXB3k&search=wonder%20showzen

B! S!

Where your friend lives--are there unicorns there? It sounds so nice.

http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=19110

xpost

I guess what I would like to know is has anyone's mind changed on the subject? Is Arthur reaching some pro-war, pro-Godsmack reader who is suddenly disillusioned by the war and horrible post-Alice In Chains butt-rock?

I don't think so.

I think that the one person who might have been open to having his mind changed was Sully and given the fact that he stayed on the phone as long as he did, I'd say that such a goal was not entirely impossible - or at least it would have given him an opportunity to rethink why he feels cretain ways. But Jay's hamfisted style made any chance of that unlikely. Most people - even those accustomed to such exchanges - do not respond well to being brow-beaten.

But Jay, don't kid yourself - you're just as dogmatic as Sully is. Maybe he wouldn't have responded even if you made nice-nice but are you about to change your mind on this issue? Hell, you haven't even changed your mind on how overbearing and obnoxious and even counter-productive this interview was and many people in this thread have voiced that opinion - some quite politely and backing up their opinions with direct quotes from the interview.

For many of the reasons that Thomas wrote upthread -- minds aren't changed by having people scream at you, or by watching two people scream at each other.

Anti-war sorts will remain anti-war, pro-war people won't be swayed by bullying, people who already hate Godsmack don't really care if Sully looks like a fool, and Godsmack fans will resent the hostility. Everyone preaches to their own converted.

And who are these "skeptics"? I think we're all aware of the boundless discussion about the war, but we disagree over the most effective way to press our viewpoints. I'm certainly not skeptical about the possibility of changing people's minds via the printed word.

God forbid, a dogmatic pacifist.

But people can be inspired to fight for a cause. I don't think people in this country are angry enough about what's going on. Rage can be a great motivating force.

Fight the real enemy.

How many of those people have meaningfully changed their views about the war or the military thanks to this interview? This is a serious question, btw.

I never said that increased discussion was a negative ... I questioned whether having people discuss a really ugly car crash (as people are wont to do) will truly accomplish anything other than backslapping and confirmation of one's existing viewpoints.

Yeah, you caught a working-class guy from Lawrence, MA who happened to get lucky in a logical snare. Congrats, champ.

1) A fair number of people who question your technique to some degree.

2) A ton of lefty high-fiving ("Wow you kicked the singer from Godsmack's ass in an argument").

3) Lotsa "Godsmack sucks."

What I don't see much of is meaningful discussion of US Military recruitment tactics with a wider scope. I assume that's what you wanted to get at, instead I read people calling the singer from Godsmack an "uneducated fuck." Frankly, this kind of stuff makes me want to slay.

I have to ask you, what were you EXPECTING the dude to say? Is he under some sort of obligation to answer with the level of education or informedness of, I dunno, a 25-year-old law student on the east coast, or whoeverthefuck reads the blogs that are reporting this story? Was his failure in any way satisfying to you? 'Cause it was to a lot of other people.

What I actually see going on is a lot of bitterness on the part of the readership out there. People don't want to believe that an "uneducated fuck" in a shitty band has attained a level of wealth, power, and influence, while they sit around and type comments into the internet (yes I'm aware of the irony here). It hits a little close to home for me because where I'm from isn't far from where they're from, and I remember hearing on the radio in like '98 about how they were all working construction and whatnot before their first album broke.

You want to target someone? How about the PR/Advertising people that work for the military? I just don't see how the singer from Godsmack is an appropriate scapegoat, given his belief (however uninformed in your eyes) that the military is an OK institution. The guys in Godsmack were probably not too far from being recruits themselves, once.

Naturally, I'm also disappointed with the level of discussion on the internet and have my doubts that blogging can enact meaningful change on ANY topic. But that's another arugment.

Finally, I'm not really holding this against you, personally. Your passion is obvious and I agree with your position, I just think you might have shot the messenger here. The smug, self-congratualtory reactions I've been reading are far more troublesome.

Late PS: Howie Klein loses me when he acts like they're supposed to be liberal 'cause they're from Boston. First of all, they're not, they're from the Merrimack Valley and things are different there. And second, that's just a really moronic statement.

Sean, we've already done that. And we're continuing to do that. Sheesh, bro.

"Naturally, I'm also disappointed with the level of discussion on the internet and have my doubts that blogging can enact meaningful change on ANY topic. But that's another arugment."

Maybe you should've said that upthread...?

Man this is getting into a tarbaby thing around here. See ya later.

3) Lotsa "Godsmack sucks."

What I don't see much of is meaningful discussion of US Military recruitment tactics with a wider scope. I assume that's what you wanted to get at, instead I read people calling the singer from Godsmack an "uneducated fuck." Frankly, this kind of stuff makes me want to slay."

Yeah, well, how about this— You don't have to convert everyone with every fucking article in a small music magazine. It can be enough to occassionally just have some lefty high-fiving, and the more people saying "Godsmack sucks" the better.
Plimpton's dead. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, you whining ILM complaint-bots.

What does this even mean? And my point is that no one seems to be capable of treating this as "an article in a small music magazine." Go read blogs, a lot of people give the interview a nonsensical David vs. Goliath interpretation.

Like the Douglas Rushkoff column in the May issue (which I just snagged last night) about ignoring Iraq because it's "their war" and there's no way to get at the truth anyway (guess dude's never heard of blogs) and it all just fux with his nice day?

Originally published on May 10, 2006 - New York Daily News

Daily Dish & Gossip by Rush & Molloy

Godsmack takes flak after Navy ads enlist band's songs

Godsmack let the Navy use its music for recruiting commercials because, well, um, er ... why not?

The rocker with the country's No. 1 album just got ambushed over selling his songs to the military.

Sully Erna, lead singer and lyricist of Godsmack, whose CD "IV" tops the Billboard charts this week, got defensive when confronted by editor Jay Babcock in the current issue of Arthur magazine. Babcock asked about the use of "Awake" and "Sick of Life" for U.S. Navy recruiting commercials.

"You're proud of recruiting your fans into the military?" Babcock asked, to which Erna replied, "Well, no. I actually sympathize with a lot of the soldiers, and the military in general, that are trained to go out and protect us." But he added, "I don't tell people to go join the military."

Babcock pressed, "You don't think using ... the power of your music has an effect on people?"

Erna, a native of working-class Lawrence, Mass., who practices the Wicca religion, countered: "Oh man, are you like one of those guys that agrees with some kid that tied a noose around his neck because Judas Priest lyrics told him to?

"It's energetic music. People feel that they get an adrenaline rush out of it. But I doubt very seriously that a kid is going to join the Marines or the U.S. Navy because he heard Godsmack in the commercial.

"They're gonna go and join the Navy because they want to jump out of helicopters and f—– shoot people! Or protect the country or whatever it is, and look at the cool infrared goggles."

Neither a Universal Records spokesman nor the Navy recruiting spokesman could tell us how much Godsmack made for the licensing of the songs.

Erna concluded: "An opportunity came up, they wanted to use some music for a recruit commercial. What are we gonna say — no?"

CNN HEADLINE NEWS - SHOWBIZ TONIGHT

["Showbiz Tonight" is the only daily one-hour entertainment news show on TV. "Showbiz Tonight" takes on the day's biggest and most provocative issues in the entertainment industry with engaging, and often heated, in-depth segments. "Showbiz Tonight" airs on Headline News at 11 p.m. ET.]

"Godsmack" for the Navy?

Aired May 11, 2006 - 23:00:00 ET

HAMMER: Well, here we go again. Another rock group embroiled in controversy over their music and the war in Iraq. But this time, it`s not exactly what you`d expect. The band "Godsmack" is actually catching flak over the use of their music in the U.S. Navy`s recruitment ads.

The group`s songs "Awake" and "Sick of Life" have been running in television commercials for the Navy, which has some critics saying that the band`s young audience will now be influenced to join the military because of the popular tunes.

Joining me from Boston, Sully Erna, who`s the lead singer of "Godsmack." I appreciate you taking some time with us, Sully.

SULLY ERNA, LEAD SINGER, "GODSMACK": Thanks for having me.

HAMMER: You`re welcome.

Well, you and the band are catching this heat, as I said, because your music is being used by the Navy in the recruitment ad, so it`s been suggested by some that the use of that music is going to make young men and women just run off and join the military and go off to war. And it`s been suggested that the band supports the war because you lent your music. And I know you`re here on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT to set the record straight on this.

ERNA: Well, yes, what I can say is that, you know, by no means has this band ever supported any war for any country or that we support government decisions or why we`re sticking our nose in other people`s business at times. What we support is our troops. And the women and men that go over there -- or anywhere -- to fight for our country and our lives and protect our freedom and I feel that, you know, we should support those causes. Whether it`s them just aiding with food and medical supplies and water for the tsunamis or Katrina or, you know, anything that we do. And I can`t imagine any American citizen that wouldn`t want to support that.

HAMMER: Yes, for a long time people have been confusing the idea that you can support our troops without necessarily supporting the war. I want to take a moment now to play a bit of the ad in question here. Let`s take a look at this.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: If someone wrote a book about your life, would anyone want to read it? The stories of tomorrow are being written today in the U.S. Navy. If you`re ready. Check out the life accelerator at Navy.com. Navy, accelerate your life. Now, get up to a $20,000 enlistment bonus...

HAMMER: I don`t know, I`ve got to tell you, Sully, I`m hearing that music in the ad. I want to get up out of my chair and join up and join the military.

Seriously, no doubt ads have influence over people, but do you think it`s ridiculous that, you know, people are actually suggesting somebody`s going to go off and join the military because of that music? Not even the vocals. Just the music is in that commercial.

ERNA: Well, I`ll tell you this. For one, I challenge anybody in this country, or any country, to pick up any of our records that we`ve ever recorded and find one political or government lyrical content in anything. I mean, our music has always been written about me and my life situations that I`ve went through, whether it was past relationships or just a boy growing into a man and overcoming life`s obstacles and the emotions that I processed going through that time in my life. So, I challenge anybody to try to find anything that has to do with supporting war or political issues in general. We`re not that kind of band. We`re just a good old rock `n` roll band, I guess. And how insulting is that to the men and women that join the armed forces that they`re that shallow and naive to just join the military because they heard a rock `n` roll song?

I think they should be apologizing to them because that makes them look pretty shallow. I don`t believe that`s the reason why they joined at all.

HAMMER: Well, I would like to get your take on the idea that, you know, you`ve said that you and your band do support our troops. Would you be willing to say whether or not you do support our president with this war in Iraq?

ERNA: I can`t say that I support that because I, personally, am not a big fan about Bush. I`ll tell you that right out in the open. I don`t -- but again, I`m not that educated enough to talk about the politics of the government, and obviously the people who write -- or the person, I should say, that wrote about this specific article, obviously is, well, a lot more educated than we are in government issues or politics or the military, whatever it is. And if he knows something that we don`t know, then maybe you should talk to us about it so we can be a little bit more educated.

HAMMER: Well, thank you for clearing it all up tonight, Sully, and really setting the record straight and making that clear divide between what you guys are standing for and not. And I appreciate you coming on SHOWBIZ TONIGHT.

ERNA: Yes, we`re just musicians.

HAMMER: All right. Sully Erna, the lead singer of "Godsmack." Appreciate you being with us. And you can pick up "Godsmack`s" latest album. It`s called "Four," and its in stores now.

"So 105.3 [http://www.buzzatlanta.com/main.html] plays the Arthur Magazine interview with Sully from Godsmack this morning on the radio. For all of you that have not heard it go to http://www.arthurmag.com/magpie/?p=1244
...
"Although the interview was most unfair. Sully was not as educated on the subject as this Babcock fellow, which to me only shows that the interview was done out of poor taste. The interview was done mainly for it's shock jock value, to raise sales for their magazine, then it was for journalistic purposes.

"So after the interview was over 105.3 the buzz plays Rage Aginst the Machine, Killing in the Name of. What was that about? Were they supporting this interviewer? Don't get me wrong I am a huge fan of Rage but to play that song after that interview kinda made me have mixed feelings."

Sully Holds His Own! [ 5/7/2006 ]

Jay Babcock of Arthur magazine conducted an interview with GODSMACK frontman Sully Erna on Monday, May 1. What follows is a transcript of the conversation, as posted on the Arthur web site...

That's what my friend thought (see my last post here above).

I mean, that was the idea under consideration but at the end of the piece Rushkoff largely rejects it. I think you're misrepresenting the column.

I mean, all those words just to reach the point that he thinks it's good to be nice to people . . .

making the participants feel good has value, I think. Maybe not direct political impact-style value, but value nonetheless.

I read the Rushkoff column today because I was curious about what you dudes were talking about. I think what he's saying is that, yes, he understands what his bud Morrison is saying: to engage in the day-to-day political world (even if you are anti-war) is to adopt and accept "their" reality. And if you are Morrison then being apolitical is fine because Morrison is engaged in his own personal battle with reality and attempting to create his own reality (via magick, drugs, art, etc.) But on the other hand, if to be apolitical means nothing more than drowning the world's problems out with yer iPod then that's not cool. So even though he knows it's "their war," he's still going to sign petitions, read up on politics, and basically stay active. Basically, he seems to be saying that even to be a liberal fighting the system is to be complicit in the creation of a certain reality (and that just might be the bigger problem). Robert Anton Wilson dealt with this same issue in the Illuminatus Trilogy: protest through apolitical magical reality vs. hard-nosed activist political reality. I'm not the most intelligble writer, but that's my take.

I do take issue with Morrison's (and Rushkoff's) phrase "their war". Call me a silly Buddhist type, but I don't think it's as simple as us. vs. them. I believe we are all to blame for the current state of affairs whether through action or non-action. It's all our war.

ARTHUR MAGAZINE LAUNCHES NEW ALBUM, CURATED BY JOSEPHINE FOSTER, TO BENEFIT COUNTER-MILITARY RECRUITING CAMPAIGNS AND PROGRAMS

"So Much Fire to Roast Human Flesh"

With wars raging across the Middle East and prospects for peace dimming, the youth of America have wised up and are starting to stay away from military recruiters in droves. Said recruiters have retaliated with aggressive--and often criminal--tactics.

An eye-opening study issued this August by the Government Accountability Office reported that "allegations and service-identified incidents of recruiter wrongdoing" increased almost 50 percent between 2004 and 2005. Criminal violations more than doubled over the same period of time. Increasingly common tactics used by the nation's 20,000 military recruiters range from lying about the financial benefits of service to threatening high school students with arrest if they back out of an enlistment process already underway. Military recruiters have also been assisting recruits in the falsification of documents to cover up conditions like autism, mental illness and serious drug problems that would bar them from service if reported. [See Endnotes below for more information.]

Musician Josephine Foster is joining forces with Bastet, our publishing imprint, to help give America's kids and parents the tools they need to protect them from the depredations of the nation's many unscrupulous military recruiters.

On August 29, we released So Much Fire to Roast Human Flesh, an 18-track, multi-artist compilation CD curated by Foster featuring exclusive contributions from some of the more outspoken members of the nation's burgeoning psychedelic folk scene, including Devendra Banhart, Feathers, David Pajo and members of Espers and Spires That in the Sunset Rise. Musicians from earlier generations of the underground, such as Michael Hurley, Kath Bloom and Angels of Light, are also present.

All profits from sales of So Much Fire... will be distributed to specific counter-military recruitment and pacifist organizations and programs who effectively advise high school students and other Americans at risk of being taken advantage of by the military's recruiters and omnipresent big-budget marketing campaigns.

"All of the musicians represented on So Much Fire... are American citizens," said Josephine Foster. "Our voices join with many others across this land that freely question and openly oppose war. Hopefully we will raise a good sum of money to help fund the educational pacifist tasks these organizations do. They are dedicated to creating a positive counter to the rising tides of the war being waged. We hope to assist them in their efforts promoting peace and non-militarism in the United States."

"I am deeply grateful to everyone involved in this gesture; from every musician, to Fred Tomaselli for use of his incredible painting as the cover art, to Jay Babcock and Laris Kreslins at Arthur Magazine who so enthusiastically took up this idea and worked to realize it. In the end, all of the labor was donated, including the manufacturing."

The album's title is taken from a line by the poet Apollinaire, who died from wounds he sustained while serving in World War I.

So Much Fire... is available for order from Arthurmag.com and from record stores across North America.

Track listing:

THE CHERRY BLOSSOMS - "Dragonfly" (live)
FEATHERS - "Dust"
MICHAEL HURLEY - "A Little Bit of Love for You"
MEG BAIRD - "Western Red Lily (Nunavut Diamond Dream)"
ANDREW BAR - "Don't Trust That Man"
GOATGIRL - "President Combed His Hair"
DEVENDRA BANHART - "I Know Some Souls" (demo)
KATH BLOOM - "Baby Let It Come Down On Me"
CHARLIE NOTHING - "Fuck You and Your Stupid Wars"
DIANE CLUCK - "A Phoenix and Doves"
JOHN ALLINGHAM & ANN TILEY - "Big War"
JOSEPHINE FOSTER - "Would You Pave the Road?"
ANGELS OF LIGHT - "Destroyer"
RACHEL MASON - "The War Clerk's Lament"
PAJO - "War Is Dead"
MVEE - "Powderfinger"
KATHLEEN BAIRD - "Prayer for Silence"
LAY ALL OVER IT - "A Place"

Cover artwork by Fred Tomaselli

Available now. $12US/14Can/17World postpaid.

ENDNOTES
Read the GAO report, "Military Recruiting: DOD and Services Need Better Data to Enhance Visibility over Recruiter Irregularities" here:
http://www.gao.gov/docdblite/summary.php?rptno=GAO-06-846&accno=A58199

High school students, their parents and friends can learn more about their rights when confronted by recruiters at
http://afsc.org/youthmil/militarism-in-schools/High-school-students-rights.htm