Tom Petty Announces 2017 Tour

Tom Petty Announces 2017 Tour

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers will embark on a 2017 tour!

Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are going out on tour once again in 2017 to commemorate the 40th anniversary of their first album. That record featured classics such as “American Girl” and “Breakdown.” The album jumpstarted the career of the band and put them on the map in the mid-1970’s. They catered to many different audiences because of their blues and country roots, relatable songwriting and always staying true to the rock genre. They have stayed together after 40 years and have been creating quality music for that amount of time. The longevity of the band is truly incredible.

Tom Petty has been one of the many critics of modern country music and Petty has the credentials to criticize. He grew up in Gainesville, FL and was exposed to country music at a very young age. Modern Country singer Chris Stapleton fired back at Petty saying how Petty was “an influence for most modern country artists.” Stapleton will be opening for Petty on a few dates over the course of the tour. Joe Walsh, a former member of the Eagles, will also be opening for Petty on a lot of the tour dates as well. Walsh had a successful solo career after the Eagles with hits such as “Life’s been Good” and “Rocky Mountain Way.”

Not a lot of bands as influential as Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers are still touring let alone are friendly with one another. They are used to a rigorous touring schedule and when they decided to take a break, many people thought it was the end and the band would never tour again. Well, here they are back for another much-anticipated tour in 2017. Rumors are that Petty wants to play solo acoustic shows after this tour reminiscent of when he went solo for a few years.

Cover Image Credit: Flickr

Popular Right Now

A Playlist From The iPod Of A Middle Schooler In 2007

I will always love you, Akon.

Something happened today that I never thought in a million years would happen. I opened up a drawer at my parents' house and I found my pink, 4th generation iPod Nano. I had not seen this thing since I graduated from the 8th grade, and the headphones have not left my ears since I pulled it out of that drawer. It's funny to me how music can take you back. You listen to a song and suddenly you're wearing a pair of gauchos, sitting on the bleachers in a gym somewhere, avoiding boys at all cost at your seventh grade dance. So if you were around in 2007 and feel like reminiscing, here is a playlist straight from the iPod of a middle schooler in 2007.

1. "Bad Day" — Daniel Powter

2. "Hips Don't Lie" — Shakira ft. Wyclef Jean

SEE ALSO: 23 Iconic Disney Channel Moments We Will Never Forget

3. "Unwritten" — Natasha Bedingfield

4. "Run It!" — Chris Brown

5. "Girlfriend" — Avril Lavigne

6. "Move Along" — All-American Rejects

7. "Fergalicious" — Fergie

8. "Every Time We Touch" — Cascada

9. "Ms. New Booty" — Bubba Sparxxx

10. "Chain Hang Low" — Jibbs

11. "Smack That" — Akon ft. Eminem

12. "Waiting on the World to Change" — John Mayer

13. "Stupid Girls" — Pink

14. "Irreplaceable" — Beyonce

15. "Umbrella" — Rihanna ft. Jay-Z

16. "Don't Matter" — Akon

17. "Party Like A Rockstar" — Shop Boyz

18. "This Is Why I'm Hot" — Mims

19. "Beautiful Girls" — Sean Kingston

20. "Bartender" — T-Pain

21. "Pop, Lock and Drop It" — Huey

22. "Wait For You" — Elliot Yamin

23. "Lips Of An Angel" — Hinder

24. "Face Down" — Red Jumpsuit Apparatus

25. "Chasing Cars" — Snow Patrol

26. "No One" — Alicia Keys

27. "Cyclone" — Baby Bash ft. T-Pain

28. "Crank That" — Soulja Boy

29. "Kiss Kiss" — Chris Brown

SEE ALSO: 20 Of The Best 2000's Tunes We Still Know Every Word To

30. "Lip Gloss" — Lil' Mama

Cover Image Credit:

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

#MeToo Has Ravaged Our Industries, But Let's Not Let It Destroy The Integrity Of The Writing Community

Not separating an artist from their work is different when translated into the writing community: Ideas are inherently separate.


This article is a response to the New York Times' piece, "Must Writers Be Moral? Their Contracts May Require It."

Here's another spark to the debate of whether artists' private lives should be separated from their work or not. The dispute has affected multiple industries within the entertainment sector, the most notably being film, after prominent figures like director Harvey Weinstein and former House of Cards actor Kevin Spacey were blacklisted by the #MeToo movement. Calls for boycotting the work of those accused of sexual misconduct quickly flooded social media platforms like Twitter and Instagram. Outrage machines hosted on those platforms have caused men to risk losing their jobs over accusations, a theme most appropriately summarized by Judge Brett Kavanaugh and his arduous confirmation hearing process.

However, adults are not the only ones involved with the cleansing of industries. Just last year, the same argument was revisited by youths criticizing the pedophilic and homophobic acts of a popular rapper's death. Our obsession with how much weight the author should hold with their work only seems to be growing — stretching its tendrils into other industries.

Judith Shulevitz' piece in the New York Times reminded me how members of the writing community aren't immune to this fight. Similar to how corporations had the right to remove Kevin Spacey from the "House of Cards" cast, publishers are starting to follow suit with "morality clauses" in their contracts. Companies like Penguin Random House have begun reserving the right to pull work from the shelves if:

"Past or future conduct of the author inconsistent with the author's reputation at the time this agreement is executed comes to light and results in sustained, widespread public condemnation of the author that materially diminishes the sales potential of the work."

At the surface, clauses such as these are seemingly innocuous. However, it sets a dangerous precedent, as opinionated writers may find themselves unable to share their beliefs without fear of having their work pulled off the shelves. Of course, in a free market society, the product is entirely dependent on the support of the consumers. It's this type of attitude that has led to accused men like Louis C.K not being able to perform as frequently as before. It's also the logical premise for boycotting: a lack of support for their art will lead to the demise of the artist.

But writing is a sector I'm willing to defend as unique in relation to consumer support. In order to increase the amount of ideas spread through writing, writing must be as available as possible. Popularity of the work is the factor we should depend on to measure its rise and fall within consumerism. Support of the consumer can still be expressed through commendations such as the positions on the NYT Bestseller List or the stamp of approval of Oprah's Book Club.

But under the threat of complete removal, as someone interested in pursuing writing as a career, I simply cannot stand idle.

Because of recent attacks directed towards the media, certain members of the print press, journalists like Maggie Haberman, have recently joined the ranks of journalists who share the title of public figures — a club formerly exclusive to broadcast journalists, such as Anderson Cooper. And because they are now exposed to the public eye as opinionated humans with popular Twitter accounts, they leave themselves to be torn apart by online mobs.

It's these same mobs that get people fired without probable cause. It's these allegations that cause storms online that crowds are willing to jump on. It's the phenomenon called doxxing, where figures like Kathy Griffin call for personal information of the Covington students to be released.

#MeToo allows this doxxing attitude to blacklist authors for causing controversy, and like philosophers in 17th century Spain, they find themselves swarmed by the majority that refuses to let their work be spread.

This isn't a unique scenario, simply uncharacteristically energized. What's different because of the introduction of "morality clauses" are the financial liabilities of controversial writing that writers now face.

In the past, it was easy to brave opposition. After all, opinionated writing has always had its enemies. But when these enemies can use platforms like Twitter to their advantage and start mobs to cause outrage over writing in order to cause a termination of a contract, that is when the line is crossed.

It used to be that if there was uproar, the publisher could deal with the matter internally. However, with "uproar clauses," it gives publishers an advantage by legally allowing them to drop their clients at the behest of digital mobs while still maintaining finances.

This doesn't mean that we shouldn't report allegations concerning authors. It means that just because they spark controversy, their books shouldn't be taken off the shelves.

This policy is dangerous to the writing community, as writers may feel discouraged to express controversial opinions, whether in their writing or on their social media platforms. It's a shame that the art versus artist argument had to extend this far into a unique profession. While it may be acceptable to cancel notable actors for homophobic tweets, it's unacceptable to let the bubble of free thought shrink in the name of consumerism.

Related Content

Facebook Comments