A lot of noise has risen after the recent statements by Dionysus Savvopoulos about his expectations from the elections on May 21st. “I hope for the self-sufficiency of the New Democracy,” the great Greek songwriter said in an interview, and soon social media posts were raining down. He has often spoken about his political views in the past, and in a controversial interview he explained his position by saying that while he respects the Democratic Arc parties and their leaders, “because they are the forces of the homeland, of the nation.” , he notes that some of them retain the old kind of “student carelessness”, as well as “excessive and completely unjustified confidence, which can be very dangerous.”

Anyway, a little about the pre-election climate and a little about the explosive social media environment, and Dionysios Savvopoulos has been heavily commented this week for his specifics, as well as his earlier statements that have been retracted; for his public attitude, or even for his work itself, which has been the subject of retrospective, rarely well-intentioned criticism.

So, does Savvopoulos usually speak in public without fear of how he will be judged by the digital market? Can a public figure of this stature change his mind faster than his audience? And if he has not won the right to speak in public, without self-censorship and without being accused of propaganda, then who will?

Speaking to K, songwriter Stathis Drogosis says: “Just as Aurianists in the 80s tried to undo Manos Hadjidakis, neo-Aurians who belong to a particular political party are trying to undo Dionysios Savvopoulos. We won’t be following them on their new soap opera. Savvopoulos is the greatest Greek songwriter, the man who changed the whole Greek song, an unimaginable poet. And this cannot be undone by any neo-left. I admire him because he never hid, he always spoke his mind boldly and boldly, even if it cost him tickets, concerts and fame. We are lucky to live in his time.”

For his part, Pantelis Dimitriadis, head of Kore. Water.” and now in “Children of Antiquity” he emphasizes that just like the right to publicly express a political preference, it is also the right to express agreement or disagreement with that preference.

“If you demand that an artist identify with you politically, you have not understood what art is. You can’t stand the questions she asks.” Chr. Homenidis

“Personally,” the songwriter Corfu continues, “after some painful internal hesitation, I have decided to stay away from passions, political and otherwise, because they do not suit my temperament, as well as any military service or polarized position. Savvopoulos’ public presence, including her artistic expression, has resonated with my aesthetic over the years, as it has with other artists who choose to join one form of the establishment or another, regardless of ideological or other cues.

That doesn’t change the impact some of their work may have on me, like Savvopoulos’s, whose first two decades of discography I sort of tinkered with. Finally, I want to believe that I reserve the right to consider “Kurem” a very good record, even if I do not fully identify myself with its lyrical-ideological content.

Christos Chomenidis points out the difference between slogans and questions of art. “Angry at Dionysios Savvopoulos for declaring his support for Kyriakos Mitsotakis,” says the author, “is like attacking Kostis Palamas, a staunch follower of Eleftherios Venizelos, K. for his pro-royal sentiments, which are also expressed in one of his songs. If you demand that an artist identify with you politically, you obviously don’t even understand what art is. You hate the questions she asks. Getting comfortable craves ready-made, simple answers. The slogans are set to music. So be content with it.”

Finally, Christophoros Kasdaglis, journalist and author of Dionysus Savvopoulos: Dirty Bread (published by Oxy), thinks the Greek songwriter’s recent statement is not news. And all because “for thirty-four years it seems to have settled down,” I vote for a tall, like a roof, “stubbornly looking for a suitable plumber for the sewerage of the country.” Savvopoulos, says Kasdaglis, has the right to change his mind, just as others have the right to judge him, but no longer fall from the clouds. “The work of every artist,” he continues, “is clearly separated from his personality, although, in my opinion, the conversion of Savvopoulos undermined his work as well. As Professor Alexis Politis noted of his post-1989 poetry, “the listener’s imagination becomes dormant, the spark is gone, and the poetry is catalyzed.”

Throw nothing away?

Also, once a work of art enters circulation, it no longer belongs to the artist, it belongs to his audience. “So, we, the old savvopulians,” concludes Kasdaglis, “keep the EFEE Collection,” “Long Zeybekiko for Nikos,” “Demosthenus Lexis,” “Kileler,” “Ode to Georgios Karaiskakis,” “Black Sea.” And let his later fans prefer “Mitsotak”, “Northern Rays” and “My son is going to the army. The distribution is very fair.”