Rage Against the Paul

My obligatory musical post today:

VP candidate Paul Ryan has tried to make himself in the image of a hip, young everyman to appeal the youth vote (I presume). This includes his emphasis on his love of rock music; bands he has cited include stereotypical choices like AC/DC and Led Zeppelin.

However, Ryan received media ridicule for claiming his favorite band is Rage Against the Machine.
For those who may not know, RATM is a rap-rock group with a distinct focus on left-wing political rants that often preach righteous violence against the corrupt right-wing "suppressors" or at least suggesting revolution (key tracks: "Killing in the Name", "Bulls on Parade", "Testify"). Additionally, they dish out crazily twisted guitar riffs built on funk, metal, and hip-hop, courtesy of guitarist Tom Morello.

Now, it's more likely that Ryan likes RATM for the latter reason, but this comment has led to more than a few jeers. Most notably, Tom Morello wrote an opinion column in Rolling Stone (a liberal magazine for music and politics) claiming "Ryan is the epitome of the Machine that our band rages against". Ryan defended himself by claiming he liked the band's sound but didn't really care about the lyrics.

We make fun of Paul Ryan for this ironic statement he made, but this really brings up the point of lyrics vs. sound in music.

I like the sound of some bands but their lyrics may be too violent, explicit, or downright weird (looking at you, Pixies). Likewise, some singers write great words to their songs but their music is kind of meh (Bob Dylan should sometimes have stuck with poetry).

This shows how music appeals to both the emotional and logical ways of knowing: which one we use may vary from person to person. Which one is more profound for you?

BTW, if you haven't read my old blog posts, you should.