From Mozart to Los del Río: the soundtrack of power

Barcelona"Without music, life would be a mistake," the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche proclaimed almost two centuries ago, and politics seems to have taken this maxim as a pattern to follow. Those in the MAGA movement know this, as they dance to the rhythm of "YMCA" by the New York group Village People, imitating the peculiar steps of their great leader, Donald Trump, who once again claimed it last week.

From Gloria Gaynor's "I will survive" by the American singer to the Catalan group Buhos, passing through Queen's "We are the champions" – recycled from the world of sports – it is difficult to find an event, a promotional video, or a rally where a song is not playing in the background. However, in the music supermarket, it's time to pay.

A few months ago, Barcelona councilwoman Elisenda Alamany had to remove a promotional video from social media in which she used a song by Pau Vallvé, after the Catalan musician publicly complained and demanded its removal because permission had not been requested. This is not an isolated case. The Spanish group Los del Río lashed out at the White House when "the Macarena" was used in a video about the bombings in Iran, and Bad Bunny had a similar experience shortly after when the Trump administration resorted to "La mudanza" to illustrate a deportation process. In Spain, a paradigmatic case was Vox using "No puedo vivir sin ti". Coque Malla, the author, had to publicly remind them that the lyrics were not dedicated to a flag, but rather spoke of a homosexual relationship, a direct hit to the party's ideological foundation. Other international artists such as the Rolling Stones or Bruce Springsteen have also had to confront the President of the United States, Donald Trump, over the use of their works in rallies, and a cultural battle has been generated where music becomes a minefield.

The electoral dopamine weapon

Why do politicians risk these conflicts? Xavier Peytibi, a political communication consultant, is clear: "The main objective is to excite." According to Peytibi, music at a rally serves to generate an "atmosphere of anticipation" that grows until, when the candidate appears, an even more passionate song is played to enhance euphoria. But music is not just background, it is also a symbolic message. Peytibi gives the example of Philadelphia, where "the song "Rocky" always plays" because the famous fictional boxer is from there, seeking a direct connection with local pride.Ignacio Martín, political scientist and member of the Association of Political Communication, defines music as a "super-powerful electoral weapon". Parties constantly seek new ways to reach citizens, and music allows for an emotional connection that programmatic proposals hardly achieve, states the expert. "Music awakens dopamine and endorphins, like when you go to a concert," explains Martín, and highlights the use of songs as "opening acts for ideas", to make them better received.Faced with this effectiveness, many parties opt for the policy of fait accompli. Martín points out that not asking for permission is almost a classic for two reasons: because they risk a refusal from the artist before using it and because, ultimately, it will be the same for their voter. In fact, as Peytibi points out, sometimes what is sought is precisely "to make people talk about you", even if it is through the controversy of not having contacted the author of the work.From copyright to Mozart

But what happens from a legal perspective? Copyright is not a monolithic block, but is divided into two clearly distinct faculties. Carles Gorriz, professor of commercial law at the Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), explains that, on the one hand, there are patrimonial or economic rights, which allow the work to be reproduced and are often assigned to record labels, and, on the other hand, we find moral rights, which the artist always retains. Susana Navas, professor of civil law at the UAB, elaborates on this idea: the moral faculty of the integrity of the work implies that the author can object to their music being associated with contexts that infringe upon their reputation or ideas. If this non-consensual association with a political ideology occurs, the author can request the withdrawal of the song and, even, damages, states Navas.Many politicians look in the mirror of the United States without understanding that the legal framework is different. Navas explains that fair use exists there, a clause that allows the use of third-party works without consent under certain parameters of "fair use." In Europe, however, the law is stricter: the consent of the author or whoever holds the rights is required for any use that is not a legal exception. To exercise this right of withdrawal, Gorriz indicates that the artist must prove they are the owner and that the use has not been permitted; if the politician does not rectify, the path is the courts.Despite the legal risk, the music business model in Spain curbs many complaints. As Ignacio Martín recalls, many bands live by playing at the main town festivals and try not to take sides too much so as not to close doors with town councils of different political colors. Furthermore, it should be remembered that these rights are not eternal: they expire 70 years after the artist's death. This is why, faced with the risk of controversy, the safest solution for a party is to resort to Beethoven or Mozart, Gorriz ironically states.