Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Even if you give him full benefit of the doubt, the fact the right could adopt this as an anthem against his intentions shows how milquetoast the song is, and how he’s failed to communicate the meaning he wants the song to have.
Fortunate Son is definitely anti-war in context but I’d say it suffers the same vagueness, the lyrics are more about solidarity with soldiers and against preferential treatment for politician’s soldiers, which are moral causes often appealed to by the right. They’ve also had their own “complicated relationship” with displaying the confederate flag which also adds to this. Other anti-Vietnam war songs like “I Ain’t Marching Anymore” are a lot more radical anti-war sentiments, one reason why Fortunate Son is so ubiquitous is because it is vague enough and allows people to impart meaning on it just enough.
Another interesting song that toes this line is “The Night They Drove Ol Dixie Down” which is a character piece of a confederate solder at the end of the civil war, with the chorus in major key it suggests an anti-war sentiment but people have also confused it for southern nostalgia.
Should a song be direct or vague? If you want to communicate a specific message like Oliver Antony and get upset when it’s misinterpreted then yes, in CCR and The Band’s case it’s about expressing an emotion or painting a scene. However so many of the classic working class songs like “Which Side Are you On” cannot be misunderstood because they directly pose the political question. One of Dylan’s biggest criticisms from the left at the time was his vague lyrics, vs folk singers like Seeger and Ochs were directly addressing heavy political subjects in their lyrics.
Even if you give him full benefit of the doubt, the fact the right could adopt this as an anthem against his intentions shows how milquetoast the song is, and how he’s failed to communicate the meaning he wants the song to have.
They adopted Fortunate Son too, and that one’s obviously not for them
This 100%
As well as “Born in the USA”
Fortunate Son is definitely anti-war in context but I’d say it suffers the same vagueness, the lyrics are more about solidarity with soldiers and against preferential treatment for politician’s soldiers, which are moral causes often appealed to by the right. They’ve also had their own “complicated relationship” with displaying the confederate flag which also adds to this. Other anti-Vietnam war songs like “I Ain’t Marching Anymore” are a lot more radical anti-war sentiments, one reason why Fortunate Son is so ubiquitous is because it is vague enough and allows people to impart meaning on it just enough.
Another interesting song that toes this line is “The Night They Drove Ol Dixie Down” which is a character piece of a confederate solder at the end of the civil war, with the chorus in major key it suggests an anti-war sentiment but people have also confused it for southern nostalgia.
Should a song be direct or vague? If you want to communicate a specific message like Oliver Antony and get upset when it’s misinterpreted then yes, in CCR and The Band’s case it’s about expressing an emotion or painting a scene. However so many of the classic working class songs like “Which Side Are you On” cannot be misunderstood because they directly pose the political question. One of Dylan’s biggest criticisms from the left at the time was his vague lyrics, vs folk singers like Seeger and Ochs were directly addressing heavy political subjects in their lyrics.