Weaponising music: How military-focused content is changing music for fans

Across social media platforms, the use of music by political accounts and in military content, while not new, is certainly becoming alarming. Images of violence intertwined with upbeat tunes evoke a dystopian and disturbing feeling, leaving artists outraged at the use of their music to promote such content. This ongoing issue raises concerns over how music increases online users’ exposure to military-focused content and highlights an ethical dilemma surrounding regulations which manage who can use music and for what.  

The use of music in content posted by political platforms is a feature prevalent in posts made by official US government accounts under the Trump administration. Notably, in a recent TikTok post from The White House account, a video of edited clips of an American football game interwoven with what appear to be clips of explosions is accompanied by AC/DC’s ‘Thunderstruck’. What are the implications of fusing music with military-focused and politically motivated content online? 

Music appears to be appropriated and used to belittle the profound consequences of violence and war

It is worth considering that the use of music in social media content is often linked to trends, seen recently in the revival of Zara Larsson’s 2016 hit ‘Lush Life’, with users posting videos of themselves dancing to the song. The use of music in military-centred content can be viewed in this light; music not only promotes this content but also appears to normalise it by marketing it as a form of entertainment, a trend. In this way, music appears to be appropriated and used to belittle the profound consequences of violence and war. 

From the perspective of social media users, music is clearly used by political accounts to target wider audiences and maximise exposure. The White House’s Instagram post portraying explosions, set to the official theme song for ‘Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas’, is a clear representation of this. By using music from this popular video game, the account attracts fans and elevates the reach of their platform, and consequently, military content.  

The effects of this are felt by Warwick students, with a survey finding that all have encountered such content at least once on various social media platforms, ranging from TikTok to Twitter. One first year English Literature student mentioned they felt “disturbed” by this content, while another student expressed their frustration with it, viewing it as “promoting propaganda as the music works with the algorithm”. It is clear that music is being misused to spread this content and exposing scenes commending violence to young people.  

The use of their music in such violent content undermines what their music stands for: community

Musicians share the outrage felt by Warwick students. Ke$ha recently called out The White House TikTok account for using her song ‘Blow’ in a post depicting military jets and explosions, stating “I absolutely do NOT approve of my music being used to promote violence of any kind”. The frustration of these artists is understandable, as the use of their music in such violent content undermines what their music stands for: community. But can artists do anything about this? 

Artists are faced with a dilemma. On one hand, they can publicly condemn the use of their music by these platforms, as Olivia Rodrigo did last year, slamming a video posted by the Department of Homeland Security, depicting Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) detaining and transporting individuals to her song ‘All-American Bitch’. On the other hand, their backlash carries the risk of promoting military-focused content further, with a Warwick student reporting that they had only encountered such videos when they were called out.  

However, as a third-year History and Politics student pointed out, the storm of controversy that ensues on social media after artists speak out is not merely ‘Instagram drama’ but scrutinises political establishments that “wield power over literal life and death” and prevents ‘tacit endorsement’ from artists. Particularly in the current political climate where conflict is rampant, it appears imperative for musicians and their fans to push back against violence and, as another student put it, call out the use of their music to ‘glamorise killing’ in these posts. 

Music is for the people

Warwick Student

But does this condemnation do anything to protect artists’ music from being used by these political accounts? In Rodrigo’s case, her song has since been removed from the video. Currently, artists can protect themselves by filing for takedown requests under current copyright laws if their music is used without permission. This poses the question as to whether stronger regulations should be put into place to manage who uses music and for what on social media. There is a mixed response from Warwick students, with some stating that artists should be able to keep their music and its use “aligned with their views”, while others showed concern for what regulations would do for the music industry. Notably, a student mentioned that “music is for the people”, suggesting that regulations put into place by corporations would threaten access to music.  

The music industry is left in uncertainty, as questions over regulations aiming to protect the misuse of artists’ music in military-focused content simultaneously risk destabilising its foundations, built around fans, by limiting access.