Semisonic Pushes Back Against the White House’s Use of Their Song "Closing Time"
In a recent controversy, the band Semisonic has publicly criticized the White House for using their hit song "Closing Time" in a social media post that has sparked widespread outrage. The post in question features a video of a man with his wrists handcuffed to his waist, being patted down at an airport, accompanied by the song’s lyrics: "You don’t have to go home but you can’t stay here." The White House’s use of the song has been interpreted as a statement on immigration enforcement, but Semisonic has made it clear that this was not their intention.
The power pop trio, hailing from the Twin Cities, issued a strong statement to The Associated Press, expressing their disapproval. "We did not authorize or condone the White House’s use of our song in any way. And no, they didn’t ask," they said. The band emphasized that "Closing Time" is a song about joy, possibilities, and hope, and that the White House has entirely missed the point of the song. This is not the first time the White House has faced criticism for using music without the artists’ consent, but this particular incident has drawn significant attention due to the nature of the content and the song’s meaning.
The White House’s Response to the Backlash
When asked about the post on Monday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the use of the song, stating, "Our entire government clearly is leaning into the message of this president." U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) also retweeted the White House’s post on X (formerly Twitter), adding the caption, "It’s closing time. We are making America safe again." This response has only added fuel to the fire, as critics argue that the use of the song in this context is inappropriate and tone-deaf.
Semisonic’s statement has resonated with fans and critics alike, many of whom see the White House’s use of the song as a misrepresentation of its original intent. "Closing Time" is widely recognized as a feel-good anthem, often associated with endings and new beginnings, but its use in a video depicting a deportee has been interpreted as a callous and insensitive move by the White House. The band’s unequivocal denunciation of the White House’s actions has been met with support from many in the music industry and beyond.
The History and Significance of "Closing Time"
"Closing Time" is a track from Semisonic’s 1998 album, Feeling Strangely Fine, which peaked at No. 43 on the Billboard 200 chart. The song itself reached No. 4 on Billboard’s Adult Alternative Airplay chart and even earned a Grammy nomination for Best Rock Song. Despite its success, the song has always been more than just a chart-topper for Semisonic; it has been a defining part of their legacy as a band. The song’s lyrics, written by Semisonic’s lead vocalist and guitarist Dan Wilson, are deeply personal and reflective, capturing the bittersweet feeling of endings and the promise of what’s to come.
The song’s original intent is far removed from the political messaging that the White House has imposed on it. For fans of Semisonic, "Closing Time" evokes memories of the late ’90s and early 2000s, a time of relative innocence and optimism. The White House’s use of the song in a video depicting a shackled deportee has been seen as a stark and jarring contrast to the song’s intended message, further alienating fans and critics alike.
A Growing Trend of Artists Speaking Out Against the White House
Semisonic is not the first band to object to the White House’s use of their music, and they are certainly not alone in their frustration. A long list of performers, including ABBA, Bruce Springsteen, Rihanna, Phil Collins, Pharrell, John Fogerty, Neil Young, Eddy Grant, Panic! at the Disco, R.E.M., Guns N’ Roses, Celine Dion, Beyoncé, and Adele, have all objected to the use of their music by Donald Trump or his associates. This trend began during Trump’s presidential campaigns and has continued well into his presidency, with many artists taking to social media and the press to express their disapproval.
The issue at hand is not just about the unauthorized use of music but also about the manipulation of the artist’s message. When the White House uses a song like "Closing Time" in a context that is so clearly at odds with its original meaning, it raises important questions about the relationship between music, politics, and artistry. Many artists have taken legal action to prevent their music from being used in such contexts, but this is often a challenging and costly process. In the meantime, public statements like the one from Semisonic serve as a powerful way to reclaimed their music and its message.
The Broader Implications of the Controversy
The controversy over "Closing Time" highlights a broader issue in the music industry: the unauthorized use of music by politicians and political entities. While it is not uncommon for political campaigns and organizations to use popular songs to energize their base and convey a certain image, the practice often results in legal disputes and public backlash. In many cases, the artists whose music is being used do not share the political views of the entity using their work, and this can lead to a messy and very public fallout.
This issue is further complicated by the fact that copyright laws often make it difficult for artists to control how their music is used once it has been released. While record labels and publishing companies typically handle licensing agreements, political campaigns often secure the necessary rights through these entities. However, this does not always mean that the artists themselves approve of the use of their music. As a result, conflicts like the one involving Semisonic and the White House are likely to continue, prompting ongoing debates about the relationship between music, politics, and intellectual property.
In the end, the dispute over "Closing Time" serves as a reminder of the power of music to evoke emotions, convey messages, and bring people together—or, in this case, drive them apart. While the White House may have seen the song as a fitting backdrop for their message, the band and their fans see it as a misuse of a deeply personal and meaningful work of art. As the conversation continues, it remains to be seen how this issue will be resolved and what it will mean for the future of music in politics.
