David Rovics was born in New York in 1967. Now based in Portland, Oregon he describes himself as a full-time dad and a part-time singer-songwriter and journalist.
Via his website, he also admits "I was a long-haired, pot-smoking, "tune in, turn on and drop out" hippie during most of my teen-age years".
Following the well trodden countercultural path of good old fashioned protest he is more in the mould of Phil Ochs or Pete Seeger than Bob Dylan. The emploring edginess of his voice is also remarkably similar to that of Mountain Goats' John Darnielle.
This one hour long collection of 21 songs was first released in 2004 and is reissued on the basis that "it is still completely relevant to what is happening in the world today".
Rovics' crusading songs are written from the perspective of an individual exercising his right to speak out against blatent socio-poltical injustice - he calls them 'songs of social significance'.
The title is by way of a dedication to Mahmud-al-Qayyyed, a 10 year old Palestinian boy tragically killed by Israel occupation forces whose story is told in 'A Song the Songbird Sings'.
Rovocs' lyrics are not designed to be poetic or subtle. In simple and unambiguous terms he addresses themes ranging from police violence (Miami) to global warming (Here At The End Of The World) or from urban sprawl (Used To Be A City) to media bias (Evening News).
In 'Who Would Jesus Bomb', Rovics attacks the hypocritical 'christians' who wage war claiming that God is on their side. Playing devil's advocate he sneers that maybe Jesus would have bombed kids in Vietnam or attacked Saddam. The final verse switches from these ironic speculations to hammer home his message: "I don't think Jesus would have dropped a single ounce of napalm".
|
This song highlights a major weakness of the collection in that it illustrates Rovacs' inability to step down from soapbox rhetoric and to let an obvious point speak for itself.
I don't subscribe to the view that protest music is dead but, I do agree with rock critic John Street who in his book 'Rebel Music, observed that "notions of 'them' and 'us', uses of sarcasm and irony, clear statements of right and wrong, all become anachronisms in the context of a pop song". Even the most politically motivated listeners will turn off if they feel they are being lectured to. As Street also wrote: "Music that works politically is not necessarily music that makes political change its self consciously ascribed goal".
I applaud David Rovics commitment but for his songs to do more than merely preach to the converted there needs to be more subtlety. As it is they amount to little more than the regurgitation of platitudes such as 'war is bad' or 'politicians lie'.
In a song like 'Moron', there may be a certain sense of liberation (and accuracy!) in singing "George Bush is a moron" but it fails as a protest song if the objective is to change hearts and minds.
You can judge for yourself by downloading many of the songs from his substantial back catalogue free of charge from his website : http://www.davidrovics.com/
|
