Rock’s Golden Era: Activism Then and Now

In the 1960s and 1970s, rock endured what many consider its “golden era.” During this time, rock bands created catchy tunes and songs with profound social impact. Artists used their music as a vehicle and tool to challenge norms and advocate for meaningful change. However, the definition of “making a difference” in people’s lives varies. Many songs out there challenged different things that were causing injustices in the world. The songs addressed social issues like civil rights, gender equality, and anti-war sentiments, while others may have addressed different societal issues at that time. The term “social reform” can relate to a broad spectrum of many different perspectives, but in this case, it is while discussing the transformative power of rock music during its golden age.  

The 60s and 70s were filled with significant global issues, many of which are still seen today but were particularly prominent during this period. These issues include civil rights, gender equality, and anti-war movements. Musicians during this time rose to the occasion, using their influence on their audience to shine a light and perspective on these specific issues. Through their music, they sought to challenge the societal norms, advocate for change, and to offer a new and enlightened perspective on these matters. This change could have been presented through protest songs, anthems, or calls for peace. Artists used their platform to shape the discourse presented in society and inspire diverse types of action on these issues as well.  

Artists known for their activism in this time include, but are not limited to, Pete Townshend of “The Who” and Sting from “The Police.” In an article on the Human Rights’ Careers website called “15 Artists Using Music to Promote Human Rights,” it is said that Pete Townshend “was the first musician to perform for Amnesty International’s Human Rights Concerts and inspired other renowned rock musicians to support the human rights cause.” Townshend’s commitment to using his music as a platform for human rights highlights the significant impact artists can have beyond just their music, as Townshend influenced other renowned rock musicians to support the cause. Sting is known for his activism and is said to have “written songs inspired by his concern for world hunger and oppressive political regimes.” A notable example is his hit single “Russians,” which was released during the Cold War era. This song addressed the nuclear arms race and the need for a solution to it all. He not only raised awareness but provoked thought and reflection on the global issue. These artists fought through their music to bring their beliefs forward to their major audiences.  

A better example of an artist during the “golden age” using their platform to contribute to social change is Pete Seeger and his song “Waist Deep in the Big Muddy.” This track carries allusions to the Vietnam War. Seeger makes metaphors to a military commander leading his troops into a dangerous river. Which symbolizes the consequence of blindly following authority. The lyrics portray the pointlessness of the war and show what soldiers and civilians may be facing morally. In the book, “Pete Seeger, Musical Revolutionary,” by Brett Clark and Scott Borchert, it is said that “a 1968 audience would have clearly understood that this song is also about Vietnam.” In 1967, Seeger, an already blacklisted artist, performed his song on the Smothers Brothers comedy hour and was censored by CBS. In the same book is his response to being censored which is, “I’m very grateful to C.B.S. for letting me return to commercial broadcasting,” he was quoted in the New York Times, “but I think what they did was wrong, and I am really concerned about it. I think the public should know that their airwaves are censored for ideas as well as for sex.” Seeger did not agree with the censorship put on his performance. With his power of music, he added to an ongoing anti-war rebellion and sparked the interest of even more people across the United States. But by 1968 these censors relented, and Seeger returned to the show. He ended up playing the same song, and this time it was broadcast to the homes of millions of people.  

From this “golden era” came the gradual shift to modern music and rock. Within this shift, there were changes in style, theme, and demographics. The style changes became more colorful and sparkly, the themes changed to the use of many swear words and sexually suggestive lyrics, and the demographics geared more towards the satisfaction of young teens. With these changes, the result was getting rid of overly political themes in modern music.  

This “golden era” of rock music had not only a certain style and sound but also a commitment to rebellion and social change. While there may be certain eras of music that share similarities in their rebellious forms or themes, the cultural impact and historical context of the “golden era” set it apart as a unique period of innovation and change. It may seem that the golden era or rock could come back, but the landscape of the music industry and society has evolved making the same replication of the “golden era” unlikely.  

Modern music has the industry’s influence glooming over its shoulders. The music industry now takes artists, constructs, and shapes what is produced and how. Many record labels in modern times decide what is considered an acceptable genre and song. Along with this is also the industry’s marketing control. They decide what to put out, who to collaborate with, and who to direct the content to. Making it easier for the artists to succeed with no need or want to speak out against the conflicts around the globe. Marketability also causes artists to want to appeal to mainstream media. The fear of speaking out could be influenced by the stability that the artists receive as well as the opportunities given to them if they “behave” according to the record labels’ standards.  

The industry was around in the 60s and 70s, but they were not as controlling over artists as they are now. During that time, musicians had creative control over what they wanted to release and with that creative control, the issues that they felt needed to be addressed could be. Without industry towering over them, they had the freedom to do what they thought was right.  

Realistically, there have been musicians in modern times who used their platform and music to speak out against the world’s injustices. Nowadays the issue is that when artists do speak out, the message is not always received, and speaking out can affect them in many ways. Some of these ways are with business and personal issues. One of the artists that have recently used their platform is Annie Lennox. In the article on MEAWW’s website called, “Internet furious after Annie Lennox’s live Grammys performance ‘cut off’ over singer’s plea for ceasefire in Gaza,” it is said that “CBS cut the political activist’s mic.” While on stage and being broadcast to the world, Lennox spoke out about the war but was censored overall.  

These days when artists speak out censorship and blacklisting are the scariest part. The backlash of fans all over the world plays a significant role as well. Cancel culture has become some frequent that overall, most musicians with major platforms do not feel the need to speak out.  

It is also important to point out that there are artists that create uproar with their content, but they may not be speaking about global issues. These days a lot of artists put out provocative content or have behavior that seems “out of pocket,” But usually this behavior tends to create a rise in streams and album sales. Working more for the industry than against.  

The “golden era” of rock music in the 60s and 70s was built around the musicians who used their music and platforms to address the issues that pressed society at that time. Artists like Pete Townsend, Sting, and Pete Seeger are prime examples of using music to create conversations about civil rights, anti-war movements, and human rights. But with the way modern music evolved, the spark that once led musicians to speak out about these problems has had a noticeable shift. This influence comes from the new control and powers of the music industry and the influence of marketability. Although some modern musicians do use their platforms, many stop out of fear. This fear is from the censorship and backlash. Despite these challenges, the “golden era” of rock music serves as the sole reminder of how music can affect and inspire change with real-life issues and social constructs, but what is the goal of music? 

The main goal of music is self-expression, which is something that has constantly been echoed throughout history, including in the works belonging to musicians of the golden era of rock. For example, John Lennon’s reflections on peace and social justice. Also, like Bob Dylan and his protest anthems. Music was created to show emotion and demonstrate strong feelings. Yet, within the music industry, there has been a notable shift towards prioritizing commercial success over artist integrity. Producing music has become more about making money and less about producing a soulful song. Artists feel societal pressure to produce songs that will hit top charts from their managers and supervisors, rather than producing music they believe in. The influence of the music industry has stifled musicians, resulting in a decline of the creation and personal aspect of music as well as the creation of politically influential songs.  

The lessened autonomy of music directly stems from the music industry enforcing stricter protocols on their artists. Compared to the 1960s and 1970s, called the Golden Age of Music, artists had to sign more restrictive contracts. Signing with labels is almost 100% necessary for artists to be successful, but many of these contracts are not fair or equally as beneficial for the artist as the label.  

Not only are these contracts confusing and restricting, but many artists are young and naive, which means they are more likely to get a contract that takes advantage of them and their music. For example, LeAnn Rimes, a young country music star, had signed a contract with Curb Records at 12 years old and “might be 35 years old before she finished delivering the 21 albums, she owes the record company”, this star being one of many to this deal with the devil.  

Kevin Murray, a previous music agent states that “if you don’t sign a contract, you don’t have a career” which makes the idea of artists signing themselves to a label much more enticing, despite the strict rules and lessened personality within their music. If artists must follow certain rules or are forced to produce a certain amount of music, their concern will be less with the quality of their work but with quantity. Artists will continue to pump out superficial songs rather than taking the time and effort to make their music have meaning, even if it is simply a more personal song rather than a grand political statement.  

Artists continue to be controlled outside their contracts with their own market-driven music production choices. Artists know which songs will hit the top charts in the modern day, therefore causing them to write shallow music that does not carry any weight. This means that the need for money and fame outweighs their intrinsic motivation to write music. For example, Ed Sheeran has talked about how “It’s kind of got to a point in the music industry where everything has to be the biggest and best every time, and then better the next time.” He genuinely believes that the industry only looks for what could be the best and not what the artist or people may want.  

Similarly, artists are less likely to take any sort of political stand in their music during this modern era because of the intense “cancel culture” that follows all celebrities and artists. “Cancel culture” is a new term with the rise of excessive social media use in which celebrities are “canceled” for specific actions or overly political lyrics. and therefore, lose their media presence and following, and usually a lot of money. Because artists can be so easily “canceled” on social platforms, the idea of writing a politically or socially vulnerable piece is not as appealing as writing a guarded, easy-to-win hit. For example, Sinead O’ Connor made a lot of people upset in 1992 when she ripped up the Pope’s picture on live television. “Sinead was not getting a lot of love at the time – she was controversial,” and even with all this she decided to shock the people at SNL when she tore the picture. Causing people to turn against her even more and even “cancel” her for her political actions.  

 While one might argue that social media makes it easier for listeners to have a deeper and more personal connection to the artist and their music, online culture is so toxic that many artists are afraid to let their listeners get that close. However, artists hiding their true intentions come with a price: less impactful music that is not causing the political form it used to. According to Youth Time Magazine, artists say “One of my greatest fears as an artist is being canceled as a musician,” which makes artists more “careful” so to speak when regarding any polar stances they take, whether on their social media or within their albums.  

This brings around a general point: the lack of politically relevant and influential music contributes to a reduced effect of music on listeners’ engagement with social and political issues. While artists are stuck in their contracts and “safety nets,” people turn to social media for political ideas rather than the previously largest type of media for common people: music. Pew Research Center study highlights that a substantial portion of Americans engage in political and social activities through social media. Artists are losing their grip on listeners because of their less involved music causing people to be less engaged with today’s societal issues.  

Music is meant to be challenging and force people to think outside of their comfort zones. Hearing of political ideas through different forms of media allows people to be constantly thinking about modern-day issues from different points of view. Artists failing to produce this complex music causes people to be disengaged, indifferent, or even worse, not aware of the injustice or problem in the first place. To revive music’s role as a form of social and political activism, artists should take advantage of social media campaigns. Artists from diverse backgrounds can collaborate on projects that highlight social and political issues from a global perspective and promote this music on their many platforms available. This not only advertises their music but promotes the political reform that music once provided many. The diminishing personal and political impact of music can be attributed to the music industry’s control over the creative output of artists, leading to a reduction in the production of personal and socially influential tracks. 

Now, today’s activist musicians have abandoned the protest anthem in favor of social media campaigns. The “golden era” of rock music, consisted of artists using their music as a potent tool for rebellion and societal reform, leaving a mark on the cultural landscape. However, as music continued to develop the activism that once came with rock music has waned in the modern era. Now fewer artists, to almost none, use their platforms for social change and activism. But some may not agree with this. People out there may believe that musicians have continued to remain engaged in activism through evolved methods.  

To them, the spirit of activism remains strong within the music they listen to and the creators of their favorite songs. According to The Fox Magazine, “Vic Mensa…is giving back to his roots by using his platform to address the lack of fresh water in parts of Ghana.” While Mensa is speaking out for the people of Ghana, he is doing so through his platform. Since the “golden era” of rock consisted of artists using their music as a direct vehicle for social commentary, this approach represents a departure from tradition. While many modern artists continue to use their social media platforms to advocate for social justice and amplify the voices of those who cannot be heard, there is a noticeable stray from the when artists sang about the problems they wanted to highlight and proclaimed hopes for societal change through their music. Instead, activism has taken on new forms, with artists using their influence and platforms to address issues outside of their music. In this case, Mensa’s advocacy for the people of Ghana serves as an example of this evolving approach to activism within the music industry. 

Social media is a major outlet for modern musicians to use their voices, but some even take it on stage to live audiences. At the 2024 Grammys, Phoebe Bridgers of the band ‘Boygenius’ spoke out against the former CEO of the Grammys. In the article, by x96 news, the author says, “Not only did Bridgers criticize… she also highlighted the sexual assault allegations Portnow faces, bluntly telling him to “rot in piss.” This example illustrates how performers are increasingly using awards stages to use against individuals, but often fail to address the same issues in their music. While Bridgers’ onstage protest is a powerful form of activism, it differs from the tradition of artists using their music to speak about social injustices or abuses.  

However, upon closer examination, the assertion crumbles. While it may be true that a lot of modern musicians use their platforms to talk about the issues that are now present in the modern world, the depth that these artists go to with their engagements is not enough in comparison to the revolutionary changes that were witnessed during the “golden era” of rock. Activism today often feels performative or done for personal gain rather than the raw energy and commitments that helped characterize the protests of the past. For example, in 2020 when the Black Lives Matter movement was at its peak, a lot of celebrities took to their social media to speak out. Amongst these celebrities were a handful of modern musicians. In an article, by The Epitaph, some of these musicians are listed, including but not limited to “…Katy Perry, Britney Spears, Drake…” These three musicians participated in something that was called “black out Tuesday.” It was a trending hashtag across multiple platforms where people would post a black square. For this movement, the black square did nothing. It was all performative.  

Much of the “golden era” was spent influencing supporters to help make changes in the society that everyone lived in. Music was the main contender and it spoke to the listeners. Musicians cared what they were writing about and told their followers to make a difference in the world they lived in. For example, there were a lot of the “protest anthems” during the time of the Vietnam War. Many did not know what the war was about or how it was being approached, but music made that much of a difference. People listened and understood that it was not something they approved of. One major example out of many is, John Lennon’s “Give Peace a Chance.” He had a major following and released this to speak to his audience.  

The debate surrounding performative activism in the music industry is complex and multifaceted. While some modern musicians have been applauded and appreciated for their genuine concern and commitment to social justice causes and their impactful activism, others have faced criticism for engaging in performative gestures that prioritize publicity over genuine advocacy. Overall, the “golden era” of rock is what had major effects on the social injustices surrounding the world.  

References

(PDF) Pete Seeger, musical revolutionary – researchgate. (n.d.).

Bharti, A. (2024, February 5). “shame on you!” Grammys under fire for cutting off Annie Lennox’s mic as she pleads for ceasefire in Gaza. MEAWW.

Higa, K. (2022, July 19). 15 artists using music to promote human rights. Human Rights Careers.

Anderson, M. (2018, July 11). 1. public attitudes toward political engagement on social media. Pew Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech.

Herron, I. (2022, May 25). The complicated relationship of music and cancel culture. Youth Time Magazine: News that Inspires, Updates that Matter.

Laura. (2001, September 6). Music stars complain about stringent contracts. The New York Times.

CBS Interactive. (n.d.). Ed Sheeran says he’s breaking free from industry pressures with new album “Autumn variations”: “I don’t care what people think.” CBS News.

Guardian News and Media. (2023, July 27). “no one knew what to do”: When Sinéad O’Connor ripped up the Pope’s photo on TV – the inside story. The Guardian.

Garn, T. (2024, February 15). Boygenius dismantles industry misogynist at Grammys. X96.

Penalosa, D. (n.d.). Performative activism does more harm than good. The Epitaph.

Smith, C. (2023, February 10). 4 modern day artists who use their music to speak on real-world issues. The Fox Magazine.