So . . . Rush Limbaugh (for those who are unfamiliar, he is a fat blowhard radio host who used to be addicted to drugs - oh, and he makes Fox News look like a bunch of commies) recently got married. Good for him. I'm sure he's happy that all of those gay people can't get married and somehow sully the sanctity of his marriage (his fourth - I guess the previous marriages couldn't survive for a different reason).
But, on this topic, he decided to have Elton John (for those who are unfamiliar, he is a fat singer/pianist who used to be addicted to drugs - and he's really flamboyantly gay) perform at his wedding, which has stirred up some controversy. To me it boils down to two questions:
1. How could Limbaugh hire a performer who clashes so strongly with his views?
2. How could John take the gig?
The first question is one that I have been considering for many years (in general, not this specific case - I'm not clairvoyant, and if I was I think I would try to see more important aspects of the future than this). I remember being asked by a friend in high school how I could like the music of Simon and Garfunkel, because it is all hippie-ish and about peace and stuff. Well, first of all, I am not opposed to peace - I'm sure it would be fine if we ever tried it. But I'm no hippie. So do you need to agree with the politics of the singer to enjoy the song?
I don't think so - I enjoy a wide variety of music that often clashes with my personal beliefs (e.g. Johnny Cash murder songs, gospel music, etc.). Obviously if the music is overbearingly political or message-oriented (Christian rock, white-supramacist music) then I agree that it is impossible to enjoy it, but otherwise, not so much.
Besides, would there be any music act out there that would agree with Rush Limbaugh? Maybe the Christian rockers . . . but I guess he's not a fan.
As for the second question, this is the behaviour that is a little more questionable. Elton John pocketed a cool $1 million for the performance. Sir Elton was quoted as saying that a musician's job was to spread peace and love, and not "cherry-pick our conscience." I don't know - if you're worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you can buy a lot of cherry-pickers. He also said that maybe his presence would change some of the guests' minds. That is just silly - "wow, Tiny Dancer was amazing! Maybe those gays aren't so bad after all."
I could see the benefit if he took the fee and used it for a pro-gay charity, essentially funneling Limbaugh's money into a cause he despises, but I haven't heard that this has happened. So, from the evidence at hand, it seems like the price of Elton John's conscience is a million dollars. Good to know.
According to the song, sorry seems to be the hardest word, but in this case I think it was "no," especially in the face of the payout.
I don't know, Eric -- I agree that you don't have to agree with singers' politics to enjoy their music, but inviting them to be present and perform at your event is something different altogether....you're not just sticking a CD in the player. You're inviting the living, breathing, singing person to your event, and in this case Rush invited a flamboyantly gay man to perform at his wedding. This IS contrary to his beliefs, and makes no sense at all.
ReplyDeleteAs for Elton, he can perform anywhere he wants. Maybe he spent the money privately on sex toys to use with is partner, or on other products/services/charities that would offend Limbaugh, you don't know. I don't believe he named the price for his conscience, just that he either didn't care whether he performed for Limbaugh (in which case he conscience was never bought or sold, it just didn't come into play) or that he did, but dealt with it in his own way.
Sister G.
Still disagree (surprise, surprise), because you're not inviting Elton John as a friend, he's a hired hand. Limbaugh isolated one aspect of Elton (his music performance) and invited that to his wedding. That the living, breathing person came is just a necessary circumstance.
ReplyDeleteI agree Elton can perform anywhere he wants and use the money for whatever he wants. I just think that he can afford to say no, and his acceptance indicates that he values the money or the act of performing more than taking a moral stand.