Rethinking Kid Rock
Tuesday, June 24th, 2008 by Patrick RossYes, Virginia, there are bloggers and organizations out there that wish to deny artists the right to choose what happens to their works, and yes, they sometimes try to use the words of artists against other artists to further their cause.
Case in point, this recent blog celebrated some statements by Kid Rock, made in an interview with the BBC in which he was expressing frustration with labels. (Find me a creator who isn't frustrated with their distributor and I'll find you a unicorn who speaks Sanskrit.) The blog celebrated the fact that Rock encouraged folks to download his music "illegally" (his word), saying he was rich and liked people hearing it.
ASSUMING HE WASN'T BEING SARCASTIC, THIS IS HIS CHOICE AS A CREATOR.
But what the blog failed to point out is that he DID NOT advocate stealing the work of those who have not consented to have their work stolen. In the article he goes on:
Asked whether he was worried about illegal downloading, he replied: "I don't agree with it. I think we should level the playing field. I don't mind people stealing my music, that's fine. But I think they should steal everything.
"You know how much money the oil companies have? If you need some gas, just go fill your tank off and drive off, they're not going to miss it."
Just in case the anonymous blogger who celebrated the first part of Kid Rock's comments but ignored the rest didn't get the point, Rock has made a video elaborating on his thesis. In the video, he advocates stealing iPods (Steve Jobs is rich), Toyotas (they're rich and foreign), gasoline (oil companies are rich) and Tommy Hilfiger jeans (he's rich).
Kid Rock is an artist. He's creative. He sometimes speaks with irony. That kind of creative thinking is lost on literalists who are not artists but wish to deprive them of their rights.
