In case you didn’t know, some of your favorite artists have been performing private concerts for some of the wealthiest countries, corporations and people for boatloads of money for quite awhile. I don’t know what your initial reactions are, but let me name some mainstream talent to draw you in a little more. Those in question include none other than Beyonce, Usher, The Eagles, Mariah Carey, The Rolling Stones and 50 Cent, to name a few.

These private shows can net top acts a million dollars or more for a 45-minute set — much more than what a normal show would pay. But does this really surprise you? Did you have that much faith in these acts’ integrity in the first place? I never really thought about this hidden angle of artistic greed, but some recent articles definitely cast a light on what these artists are doing.

My first readings on the matter started about a couple weeks ago with the launch of the Libyan revolution in The New York Times. This might not really connect with the topic of discussion, but the man in charge of Libya does. Moammar al Gadhafi, Libya’s dictator, paid Beyonce, Mariah Carey, Usher and 50 Cent an excess of a million dollars each to perform at parties for him, his family and inner political circles.

I mean, holy smokes, folks! This is literally insane on so many levels! Playing for the dictator of a country who represses his people through media and other coercions? ‘But William,’ you might say, ‘these artists did not know who they were playing for, right?’ First of all, I highly doubt that — how oblivious and blind-sighted do you have to be to not know you are performing for? Besides, why would you agree to go onstage if you don’t know who your benefactor is? And second, that makes it even worse on the integrity scale. These ‘artists’ were willing to do literally anything to make their dough.

I’m almost at a loss of words on how to adequately get my point across without going on a brutal tirade. Don’t you see? These artists are not behooved to you, the people. Their music is not meant to mean anything or make a lasting impact. Instead, it is meant to sell. We all pine for music with substance, music with depth. Instead, what we get are artists who are in the industry to rack up the most dollar bills.

One of the ideas expressed after the initial news of the Gadhafi-funded artists is something I agree with but don’t wholly support. The public demanded the money acquired be donated to charities. And yes, Nelly Furtado tweeted she would donate the money to an unnamed charity, and Beyonce claimed she had already donated it all to her charity as well. But do not be mistaken by this quick fix to save public face. It does not solve the root of the problem.

What needs to happen is a re-evaluation from the public of what an artist is. Do we go back to Bob Dylan or U2 and view them as the mold for the morally artistic act? Can there be a modern, updated version we can all agree on? I believe so. But the only way that can happen is through the musicians we put on pedestals. ‘Cause when you have rappers rapping about getting the most money, then technically, in the real world, they should do what they preach.

If we redefine the acts we believe in and hold them to a higher standard, I believe we can reform music into something that is believable and socially relevant to us all again.

William Bamford is a freshman music industry major. His columns appear every other Monday, and he can be reached at webamfor@syr.edu.

Published on March 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm