How to deal with good music from people who have done bad things
March 11, 2019 10:44 AM Subscribe
There are a number of ways to react to learning that a musician or artist has done bad things. On one hand, SNL’s’ Pete Davidson, speaking on listening to Michael Jackson and R. Kelly: ‘You Just Have to Admit They’re Bad People’ and donate money to a good, related cause (Variety). On the other, you have a significant movement to #MuteRKelly and stop playing his songs on the radio (Complex), and six things you should do instead of listening to R. Kelly's (new) song (Dazed Digital)
This is such a hard topic, although easier in this particular case because I dislike R. Kelly's music anyway.
But shoot, how do you reconcile enjoying someone's art with knowing they're a shitty person? I'm not convinced "donate money to something else" is really a solution here.
Louis CK is the hardest one for me, because at his best I think he was doing something fundamentally sincere and productive with a lot of his writing that is totally ruined for me by the creepiness.
posted by aspersioncast at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
But shoot, how do you reconcile enjoying someone's art with knowing they're a shitty person? I'm not convinced "donate money to something else" is really a solution here.
Louis CK is the hardest one for me, because at his best I think he was doing something fundamentally sincere and productive with a lot of his writing that is totally ruined for me by the creepiness.
posted by aspersioncast at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
why do I not have a way to effectively tell spotify to block certain artists?
This recently became possible, at least on the mobile apps: Spotify's mobile app lets you block artists you can't stand.
posted by Lexica at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2019 [12 favorites]
This recently became possible, at least on the mobile apps: Spotify's mobile app lets you block artists you can't stand.
posted by Lexica at 11:31 AM on March 11, 2019 [12 favorites]
The tools to create music have never been more available to more people, and the creeps need to get out of the way for the many, many noncreeps making music now.
posted by salt grass at 11:32 AM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
posted by salt grass at 11:32 AM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
There was a bit on Desus and Mero this week where they were talking about the Michael Jackson documentary, and an off camera voice asked if MJ was "canceled". Mero replied with something along the lines of "Canceled? He's dead. Propofol canceled Michael."
It was a crass way of dealing with the subject, but there is a line to be drawn where a problematic artist is still benefiting monetarily from their art. Davidson's cap-and-trade method is a good start in that the victims are being considered, but R. Kelly is still getting paid.
posted by Uncle Ira at 11:36 AM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
It was a crass way of dealing with the subject, but there is a line to be drawn where a problematic artist is still benefiting monetarily from their art. Davidson's cap-and-trade method is a good start in that the victims are being considered, but R. Kelly is still getting paid.
posted by Uncle Ira at 11:36 AM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
I find this really easy. If I find out someone's an asshole, I stop consuming their art. Obviously there's a lot of art I don't consume any longer. Most of it, shockingly, by white men. But you know what? The world is full of art, just exploding with art, by millions of people, most of whom are not white men, and most of whom are not assholes. Seek them out. Listen, read, watch, their work. It may be a challenge at first, because so much curation has been focussed on white men's work, but you know what? You find sources and resources. You stop taking what is dished out, and you go out into the world and you find stuff that's hiding, more often than not, in plain view, just begging for an audience. And it's fucking amazing having these new ideas and new perspectives, and being able to appreciate this new art without having to worry about whether you should feel bad for liking it.
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:36 AM on March 11, 2019 [48 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 11:36 AM on March 11, 2019 [48 favorites]
Is it a question of "doing" reconciliation?
I mean, to me, ethical consumption is a matter of gut feeling. I also find it easy. I don't feel good when I listen to music by demonstrably terrible people. I don't feel good when I watch Roman Polanski movies. I feel queasy now whenever I see Weinstein's name at the beginnings of movies. I instinctively turn off R. Kelly's voice and have for years....
These are reflexive, very unavoidable disgust-affect reactions to knowing more about terrible artists and I don't have control over it.
I don't understand the hand wringing around "how can we listen now??" - I mean, listen to your heart?
And a question: can anyone think of an instance where "separating the art from the artist" doesn't straightforwardly endorse the worst of bad artist/genius/person behavior? Is there any instance where this kind of thinking was actually good for the vulnerable? minorities? disempowered? disenfranchised??
Who was making the "we must separate the art from the artist" argument and why, anyway??
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:37 AM on March 11, 2019 [12 favorites]
I mean, to me, ethical consumption is a matter of gut feeling. I also find it easy. I don't feel good when I listen to music by demonstrably terrible people. I don't feel good when I watch Roman Polanski movies. I feel queasy now whenever I see Weinstein's name at the beginnings of movies. I instinctively turn off R. Kelly's voice and have for years....
These are reflexive, very unavoidable disgust-affect reactions to knowing more about terrible artists and I don't have control over it.
I don't understand the hand wringing around "how can we listen now??" - I mean, listen to your heart?
And a question: can anyone think of an instance where "separating the art from the artist" doesn't straightforwardly endorse the worst of bad artist/genius/person behavior? Is there any instance where this kind of thinking was actually good for the vulnerable? minorities? disempowered? disenfranchised??
Who was making the "we must separate the art from the artist" argument and why, anyway??
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:37 AM on March 11, 2019 [12 favorites]
As with most things, I wish there was some nuance in these conversations. Each case in different. Michael Jackson was a victim of child abuse who grew up in the spotlight and pioneered the acceptance of black superstars on MTV and elsewhere while doing mountains of charity work. R Kelly is...pretty ok if you're into his music but is pretty much a douchey guy and the opposite of indispensable as an artist. I have a different reaction to people trying to defend either of them as people or artists.
My SO works with sex offenders, so my day to day is soaked in conversations about their histories, their crimes, their therapy, and their struggles to become positive members of society again, or sometimes their increasing misanthropy. It's clear that society paints them all with one awful brush when they're a population of individuals, like any other. It's not even as though you can say there's a 'spectrum' because that's still too simplistic. This isn't an X axis or an X and Y axis thing.
The other side of this is that we never seem as interested in the enablers around these celebrity offenders unless they're also famous or high-profile. For example: that Michael Jackson's estate put out a bunch of 'limited release' concert videos to draw attention away from the premier of the latest accusatory documentary makes absolute perfect business sense. They own the rights to a body of work that is made less valuable by negative perception. But that's the same profit-driven evil that was at work while all of MJ's handlers and lawyers and business associates helped the offender create the insulated spaces and quiet connections he needed to continuously engage in that behavior. See also: (the paid people around) R Kelly, Elvis, Sandusky, Stephen Tyler, Bob Barker.
posted by es_de_bah at 11:38 AM on March 11, 2019 [34 favorites]
My SO works with sex offenders, so my day to day is soaked in conversations about their histories, their crimes, their therapy, and their struggles to become positive members of society again, or sometimes their increasing misanthropy. It's clear that society paints them all with one awful brush when they're a population of individuals, like any other. It's not even as though you can say there's a 'spectrum' because that's still too simplistic. This isn't an X axis or an X and Y axis thing.
The other side of this is that we never seem as interested in the enablers around these celebrity offenders unless they're also famous or high-profile. For example: that Michael Jackson's estate put out a bunch of 'limited release' concert videos to draw attention away from the premier of the latest accusatory documentary makes absolute perfect business sense. They own the rights to a body of work that is made less valuable by negative perception. But that's the same profit-driven evil that was at work while all of MJ's handlers and lawyers and business associates helped the offender create the insulated spaces and quiet connections he needed to continuously engage in that behavior. See also: (the paid people around) R Kelly, Elvis, Sandusky, Stephen Tyler, Bob Barker.
posted by es_de_bah at 11:38 AM on March 11, 2019 [34 favorites]
I find this really easy. If I find out someone's an asshole, I stop consuming their art.
except, what's your definition of asshole? The last time I called someone an asshole, it was because they ran a stop sign. And how does something like time figure in? As per the recent Eric Clapton thread -- well, obviously he was a racist asshole in 1977 (or whenever), but what about 1966-70 when he was doing all of his best stuff anyway and maybe hadn't been skewed that badly yet by fame, heroin etc? What about Michael Jackson when he was ten or twelve years old and not just singing like a genuine angel but maybe suffering some horrible abuse himself?
As with most things, I wish there was some nuance in these conversations.
posted by philip-random at 11:48 AM on March 11, 2019 [14 favorites]
except, what's your definition of asshole? The last time I called someone an asshole, it was because they ran a stop sign. And how does something like time figure in? As per the recent Eric Clapton thread -- well, obviously he was a racist asshole in 1977 (or whenever), but what about 1966-70 when he was doing all of his best stuff anyway and maybe hadn't been skewed that badly yet by fame, heroin etc? What about Michael Jackson when he was ten or twelve years old and not just singing like a genuine angel but maybe suffering some horrible abuse himself?
As with most things, I wish there was some nuance in these conversations.
posted by philip-random at 11:48 AM on March 11, 2019 [14 favorites]
The last time I called someone an asshole, it was because they ran a stop sign
Um...are we really going to have this conversation about how we know sex assault is like, bad and also different from running a stop sign?
Maybe the complex idea of Time comes in here: when you find out someone is an asshole, how does your heart feel to listen to them make money and have success at the expense of their victim? From the MOMENT I find out (in time) I no longer can enjoy that music, film or book... no matter how great it is.
Like others have said before: geniuses aren't so precious that there aren't MANY more voices to listen to.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:50 AM on March 11, 2019 [22 favorites]
Um...are we really going to have this conversation about how we know sex assault is like, bad and also different from running a stop sign?
Maybe the complex idea of Time comes in here: when you find out someone is an asshole, how does your heart feel to listen to them make money and have success at the expense of their victim? From the MOMENT I find out (in time) I no longer can enjoy that music, film or book... no matter how great it is.
Like others have said before: geniuses aren't so precious that there aren't MANY more voices to listen to.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:50 AM on March 11, 2019 [22 favorites]
Dressed to Kill, you don't watch any production associated with Weinstein?
posted by Selena777 at 11:52 AM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Selena777 at 11:52 AM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
you don't watch any production associated with Weinstein
Not anything since the public accusations against him (shrug) I'm not the worse for it either.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:53 AM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
Not anything since the public accusations against him (shrug) I'm not the worse for it either.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 11:53 AM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
‘You Just Have to Admit They’re Bad People’ and donate money to a good, related cause
buying indulgences for venial sins is back, baby
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:57 AM on March 11, 2019 [41 favorites]
buying indulgences for venial sins is back, baby
posted by prize bull octorok at 11:57 AM on March 11, 2019 [41 favorites]
Hmm, I was under the impression that Michael Jackson was unfairly prosecuted by people who were grifters. There was a thread posted here years ago that was about the man who initially took MJ to court and how the entire thing was basically this man wanting fame and money and using his child to get it. Is there something new in this documentary?
posted by gucci mane at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by gucci mane at 11:59 AM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
How do ya'll generally deal with it when a piece of work is the result of a collaboration between an abuser and their victim? Does the abuser's presence taint the work irreparably?
posted by Selena777 at 12:10 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by Selena777 at 12:10 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Does the abuser's presence taint the work irreparably?
Yes, for me, the answer is OVERWHELMINGLY yes. In fact, there's even more palpable heartache and tragedy for me because it often means seeing the pain and exploitation in the jerk-artist/victim-muse relationship. It's usually *right there* in the art.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 12:16 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
Yes, for me, the answer is OVERWHELMINGLY yes. In fact, there's even more palpable heartache and tragedy for me because it often means seeing the pain and exploitation in the jerk-artist/victim-muse relationship. It's usually *right there* in the art.
posted by Dressed to Kill at 12:16 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
The difficult thing is that the industries connected with "stardom" have, since their beginnings, been tied to abuse and control in such fashion that would be completely unacceptable were it to be made plain to most people directly. It's never even really been much of a secret, I mean that's where the term "casting couch" comes from and it's true worldwide.
How deep are you willing to dig to find art that hasn't been compromised by unethical behavior on the part of its creators? If the measure is just "when I hear about it" is that really much of an ethical test or is it more concern over one's own image at that point? I'm not being snarky. There is a deeper ethical question there just as there is in asking with whom or what are you drawing these lines. The history of the US for example is built on genocide and slavery and virtually every industry profits from unethical behavior and provides employment to bad people, but we enjoy the fruits of that labor without the same sort of attention.
I don't have any answer for when or how one should choose to listen to Michael Jackson, for example, but I personally believe the fetish and fascination around celebrity of all sort is incredibly toxic and at the root of a lot of these problems, but eradicating celebrity seems all but impossible given how much people seem to want it.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:17 PM on March 11, 2019 [18 favorites]
How deep are you willing to dig to find art that hasn't been compromised by unethical behavior on the part of its creators? If the measure is just "when I hear about it" is that really much of an ethical test or is it more concern over one's own image at that point? I'm not being snarky. There is a deeper ethical question there just as there is in asking with whom or what are you drawing these lines. The history of the US for example is built on genocide and slavery and virtually every industry profits from unethical behavior and provides employment to bad people, but we enjoy the fruits of that labor without the same sort of attention.
I don't have any answer for when or how one should choose to listen to Michael Jackson, for example, but I personally believe the fetish and fascination around celebrity of all sort is incredibly toxic and at the root of a lot of these problems, but eradicating celebrity seems all but impossible given how much people seem to want it.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:17 PM on March 11, 2019 [18 favorites]
I wish there was some nuance in these conversations.
If we’re going to separate out the bad-but-not-100%-evil from the monsters in the first place- and I’m far from convinced we should - I would like if this nuance also included acknowledgement of the way that turning a blind eye to the former group makes it a hell of a lot easier for the latter group to operate.
Example, Jimmy Savile: undoubtedly a predatory abuser, to the point where nobody’s interested in defending his media career and instead there is much upset over how he could possibly, possibly have got away with so much for so long.
But: Savile was a DJ, in a music scene that featured a neverending parade of famous men who got feted as celebrities despite their sexual activities with young teenagers being not exactly secret. Bill Wyman. Steve Tyler. David Bowie. John Peel. Jimmy Page. How much did Savile get away with because people were prepared to accept that oh well it’s music, that’s just what the scene is like? How many people even now are fine with shrugging off the crimes committed by all these other men so long as they can comfortably class 13- and 14-year-olds as ‘groupies’?
I don’t know if “well we should just stop buying their music, then” is the best solution. It seems like a very consumerist solution to a problem that goes way beyond anyone’s individual music-buying choices. But we should collectively be less happy to prop up the demigod-like status of artists we like when they act in monstrous ways, even when there’s always a bigger, badder monster to compare them with.
posted by Catseye at 12:19 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
If we’re going to separate out the bad-but-not-100%-evil from the monsters in the first place- and I’m far from convinced we should - I would like if this nuance also included acknowledgement of the way that turning a blind eye to the former group makes it a hell of a lot easier for the latter group to operate.
Example, Jimmy Savile: undoubtedly a predatory abuser, to the point where nobody’s interested in defending his media career and instead there is much upset over how he could possibly, possibly have got away with so much for so long.
But: Savile was a DJ, in a music scene that featured a neverending parade of famous men who got feted as celebrities despite their sexual activities with young teenagers being not exactly secret. Bill Wyman. Steve Tyler. David Bowie. John Peel. Jimmy Page. How much did Savile get away with because people were prepared to accept that oh well it’s music, that’s just what the scene is like? How many people even now are fine with shrugging off the crimes committed by all these other men so long as they can comfortably class 13- and 14-year-olds as ‘groupies’?
I don’t know if “well we should just stop buying their music, then” is the best solution. It seems like a very consumerist solution to a problem that goes way beyond anyone’s individual music-buying choices. But we should collectively be less happy to prop up the demigod-like status of artists we like when they act in monstrous ways, even when there’s always a bigger, badder monster to compare them with.
posted by Catseye at 12:19 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
Welp, CK just booked 3 nights in St Louis and the P-D glosses over him as being 'controversial' and this is part of 'comeback tour'
posted by fluttering hellfire at 12:23 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by fluttering hellfire at 12:23 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
Can we just clear up some definitions please?
An asshole is the guy who rolls the stop sign when it's not his turn and you have to slam on your breaks.
R Kelly and Michael Jackson et. al. may in fact be assholes, but that's kind of beside the point. The behavior we are talking about here is sex crimes, not assholery. They are sexual predators, abusers, and most importantly: serial criminals.
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:27 PM on March 11, 2019 [29 favorites]
An asshole is the guy who rolls the stop sign when it's not his turn and you have to slam on your breaks.
R Kelly and Michael Jackson et. al. may in fact be assholes, but that's kind of beside the point. The behavior we are talking about here is sex crimes, not assholery. They are sexual predators, abusers, and most importantly: serial criminals.
posted by allkindsoftime at 12:27 PM on March 11, 2019 [29 favorites]
Each case in different. Michael Jackson was a victim of child abuse who grew up in the spotlight and pioneered the acceptance of black superstars on MTV and elsewhere while doing mountains of charity work. R Kelly is...pretty ok if you're into his music but is pretty much a douchey guy and the opposite of indispensable as an artist. I have a different reaction to people trying to defend either of them as people or artists.
I'm not sure the difference between their backgrounds is as different as you're saying. R. Kelly was repeatedly sexually abused over several years as a child and instead of growing up in the spotlight, was raised in poverty and violence. He remains an awful person who has done incalculable wrong far beyond any excuse that could possibly be made for him, but if the distinction you're drawing between the two is that Michael Jackson's work is more culturally important and that his childhood experiences were more personally devastating, I don't think that entirely holds up.
posted by Copronymus at 12:27 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
I'm not sure the difference between their backgrounds is as different as you're saying. R. Kelly was repeatedly sexually abused over several years as a child and instead of growing up in the spotlight, was raised in poverty and violence. He remains an awful person who has done incalculable wrong far beyond any excuse that could possibly be made for him, but if the distinction you're drawing between the two is that Michael Jackson's work is more culturally important and that his childhood experiences were more personally devastating, I don't think that entirely holds up.
posted by Copronymus at 12:27 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
R Kelly and Michael Jackson et. al. may in fact be assholes, but that's kind of beside the point. The behavior we are talking about here is sex crimes, not assholery. They are sexual predators, abusers, and most importantly: serial criminals.
I agree with the spirit of this comment, but I also think it's really important to make a distinction between the moral and legal issues here; the issue isn't that they're "serial criminals", it's that they're predators and abusers. There are plenty of reprehensible things that aren't illegal and lots of relatively benign things that are illegal and the ways in which laws are enforced are extremely variable and disproportionately criminalize marginalized people so I just think it's really important to make sure we are clear that the issue is not "they broke the law", which does not always have a strong correlation with morality, the issue is "they are predators and abusers", which would be unacceptable even if it were legal.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:39 PM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
I agree with the spirit of this comment, but I also think it's really important to make a distinction between the moral and legal issues here; the issue isn't that they're "serial criminals", it's that they're predators and abusers. There are plenty of reprehensible things that aren't illegal and lots of relatively benign things that are illegal and the ways in which laws are enforced are extremely variable and disproportionately criminalize marginalized people so I just think it's really important to make sure we are clear that the issue is not "they broke the law", which does not always have a strong correlation with morality, the issue is "they are predators and abusers", which would be unacceptable even if it were legal.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 12:39 PM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
Couple of other examples.
Beethoven used to shit on the floor and let his landlady clean it up. While writing his symphonies.
Carlo Gesualdo da Venosa killed his wife and her lover and then went on to compose some of the most gorgeous music ever.
There's tons of other examples current and historical. Fuck those guys but the music is not them.
posted by charlesminus at 12:45 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Beethoven used to shit on the floor and let his landlady clean it up. While writing his symphonies.
Carlo Gesualdo da Venosa killed his wife and her lover and then went on to compose some of the most gorgeous music ever.
There's tons of other examples current and historical. Fuck those guys but the music is not them.
posted by charlesminus at 12:45 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
This is the thing: Art is not context-free.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:46 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:46 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
Oh, and since it came up in the thread already, the notion of this kind of issue going being able to be largely sidestepped by avoiding white men isn't a sufficient answer. The R Kelly accusations were accompanied by many calls about how the voices of black women aren't listened to when abuse allegations arise and the amount of benefit white women have received from racist policies and attitudes in the entertainment industries is impossible to ignore. White men certainly and unquestionably have benefited the most, but the problems involved go much deeper than that.
posted by gusottertrout at 12:48 PM on March 11, 2019 [8 favorites]
posted by gusottertrout at 12:48 PM on March 11, 2019 [8 favorites]
Hmm, I was under the impression that Michael Jackson was unfairly prosecuted by people who were grifters. ... Is there something new in this documentary?
Yes. Fanfare thread here, includes discussion and links to articles.
Michael Jackson sexually abused boys. Lots of them.
posted by dnash at 12:51 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
Yes. Fanfare thread here, includes discussion and links to articles.
Michael Jackson sexually abused boys. Lots of them.
posted by dnash at 12:51 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
Fuck those guys but the music is not them.
but it did come out of them. This is how I tend to view it. Beethoven's music is the best thing to come out of him, I suspect, his highest humanity. Do we throw it in the burn pile because we know that he behaved badly, perhaps inhumanely?
This is the thing: Art is not context-free.
it is if you're unaware of the context. I know nothing of the personal lives of members of Procol Harum (randomly selected from a playlist). Which makes my experience of Salty Dog not so much context free but certainly free of any of the band's personal bs (or perhaps saintliness). I just like the song, its weird poetry etc.
But somebody like Beck who I know to be from a family of Scientologists and who hasn't ever really offered a satisfactory perspective on it -- my tendency is to give his stuff a miss, and even to hear a creepiness in it that I wouldn't otherwise.
posted by philip-random at 12:59 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
but it did come out of them. This is how I tend to view it. Beethoven's music is the best thing to come out of him, I suspect, his highest humanity. Do we throw it in the burn pile because we know that he behaved badly, perhaps inhumanely?
This is the thing: Art is not context-free.
it is if you're unaware of the context. I know nothing of the personal lives of members of Procol Harum (randomly selected from a playlist). Which makes my experience of Salty Dog not so much context free but certainly free of any of the band's personal bs (or perhaps saintliness). I just like the song, its weird poetry etc.
But somebody like Beck who I know to be from a family of Scientologists and who hasn't ever really offered a satisfactory perspective on it -- my tendency is to give his stuff a miss, and even to hear a creepiness in it that I wouldn't otherwise.
posted by philip-random at 12:59 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Increasingly I just think whether you want to engage with a person's work post-facto is the sort of personal (and particular) question that's not really worth arguing about, in comparison to the big societal questions like:
1.) how do we make sure fame and fortune do not protect people from being held accountable in a timely fashion from now on?
2.) when individuals were harmed 20+ years ago and did not receive justice, how do we go about seeking justice and recompense now, to the maximum extent that is possible?
posted by atoxyl at 1:08 PM on March 11, 2019 [28 favorites]
1.) how do we make sure fame and fortune do not protect people from being held accountable in a timely fashion from now on?
2.) when individuals were harmed 20+ years ago and did not receive justice, how do we go about seeking justice and recompense now, to the maximum extent that is possible?
posted by atoxyl at 1:08 PM on March 11, 2019 [28 favorites]
Context informs the appreciation of art. If one wants to stick one's head in the sand and never learn anything about the artist or the environment in which the art was created, one can enjoy a lot of art without having to feel bad about it. I mean, I guess that's giving yourself an ostrich pass, three monkeys style?
On the other hand, a lot of art is rendered lesser without its context. I hear or see something beautiful, I want to know how it got that way. If it was through a lot of personal struggle, I understand and sympathise. If it was the product of a manipulative, abusive manager, I'll take that under advisement, can I handle the pain or is it too much? If it's someone who got where they are because they're an abuser, that's not good news, I don't want to eat that sandwich.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:10 PM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
On the other hand, a lot of art is rendered lesser without its context. I hear or see something beautiful, I want to know how it got that way. If it was through a lot of personal struggle, I understand and sympathise. If it was the product of a manipulative, abusive manager, I'll take that under advisement, can I handle the pain or is it too much? If it's someone who got where they are because they're an abuser, that's not good news, I don't want to eat that sandwich.
posted by seanmpuckett at 1:10 PM on March 11, 2019 [1 favorite]
I'm probably completely wrong but I like to think that the Leonard Cohen song, 'That Don't Make it Junk' is about this dilemma. I think one of humanity's saving graces is that even the very worst of us can create something beautiful.
On the other hand I'm not inclined to enrich certain people or their descendants.
posted by night_train at 1:13 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
On the other hand I'm not inclined to enrich certain people or their descendants.
posted by night_train at 1:13 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
I think Beethoven's 5th is quite a bit lesser if you have to think about him sitting above an un-emptied chamber pot while listening to it.
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:14 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 1:14 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
Beethoven's music is the best thing to come out of him, I suspect, his highest humanity. Do we throw it in the burn pile because we know that he behaved badly, perhaps inhumanely?
In other circumstances it would rile my fighting spirit, but these days I guess it just makes me sad to see this truly difficult, painful, and meaningful question engaged with in such a superficial and trivializing manner. Do we have to start this discussion at the level of "Bach once bit his thumb at a city beadle, we can't just destroy all his works and scour history of his memory?"
posted by praemunire at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2019 [16 favorites]
In other circumstances it would rile my fighting spirit, but these days I guess it just makes me sad to see this truly difficult, painful, and meaningful question engaged with in such a superficial and trivializing manner. Do we have to start this discussion at the level of "Bach once bit his thumb at a city beadle, we can't just destroy all his works and scour history of his memory?"
posted by praemunire at 1:17 PM on March 11, 2019 [16 favorites]
One of the places where I draw a line is whether an artist is dead or not; whether those who survived them can financially benefit from their work; and what the family or the estate is doing anything to counteract the abuse and inhumanity they perpetuated in their lifetimes. This means I wouldn't buy or listen to work by R. Kelly, because he can still benefit from it; and I would avoid Michael Jackson because his estate has been shutting down his victims. If I have to watch/read/listen to something by an artist who has raped or assaulted others, I will find a way to do it where they wouldn't benefit. The last time this happened was in college, when we had to watch Polanski's Tess of the D'Urbevilles for a class.
This gets into some gray areas. Wagner has been dead for hundreds of years, but I can't bring myself to engage with his work any longer than I have to because of his racism and antisemitism. This is not ideal, but in late capitalism this seems like the best way to navigate work by harmful artists.
posted by pxe2000 at 1:23 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
This gets into some gray areas. Wagner has been dead for hundreds of years, but I can't bring myself to engage with his work any longer than I have to because of his racism and antisemitism. This is not ideal, but in late capitalism this seems like the best way to navigate work by harmful artists.
posted by pxe2000 at 1:23 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
Every time I see John Krickfalusi come up, I follow it up with a note about what he did to Robyn, Katie, and a series of other young women. Inevitably I get someone bitching about how I should "separate the art from the artist".
And, you know, if you wanna enjoy the work it's still some solid stuff. John knows his shit, I know my shit in part because he taught me. "Ender's Game" had a bunch of power for GenXers despite a lot of us dropping Orson Scott Card when he came out as rabidly homophobic. I learnt a ton about comics from "Cerebus" despite Dave Sim being an MRA before that term existed.
I can acknowledge that some people who have made some great art have also done some terrible things. Some of it, I'll live with knowing that and still love the work. Some of it, I won't. And even if it's stuff I can be okay with coming from a person who did some terrible shit, I'll warn people what they're getting into.
posted by egypturnash at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
And, you know, if you wanna enjoy the work it's still some solid stuff. John knows his shit, I know my shit in part because he taught me. "Ender's Game" had a bunch of power for GenXers despite a lot of us dropping Orson Scott Card when he came out as rabidly homophobic. I learnt a ton about comics from "Cerebus" despite Dave Sim being an MRA before that term existed.
I can acknowledge that some people who have made some great art have also done some terrible things. Some of it, I'll live with knowing that and still love the work. Some of it, I won't. And even if it's stuff I can be okay with coming from a person who did some terrible shit, I'll warn people what they're getting into.
posted by egypturnash at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2019 [11 favorites]
If the measure is just "when I hear about it" is that really much of an ethical test or is it more concern over one's own image at that point? I'm not being snarky.
Cool to have a choice about whether to patronize abusers, a choice that you can debate endlessly, as though it's some abstracted ethical exercise, rather than having a visceral adrenal reaction that causes you measurable physiological and psychological harm and that makes that choice for you, I guess.
Perhaps you weren't being snarky, but you were being privileged af.
I have approximately zero time for discussions that focus on the abusers, as though they fucking matter anymore. No. Harm reduction matters. The victims -- not just their victims, but everyone who gets to be reminded of their own trauma every time these abusers get paraded across the public sphere -- matter. That's your ethical concern.
Jesus Christ.
posted by schadenfrau at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2019 [17 favorites]
Cool to have a choice about whether to patronize abusers, a choice that you can debate endlessly, as though it's some abstracted ethical exercise, rather than having a visceral adrenal reaction that causes you measurable physiological and psychological harm and that makes that choice for you, I guess.
Perhaps you weren't being snarky, but you were being privileged af.
I have approximately zero time for discussions that focus on the abusers, as though they fucking matter anymore. No. Harm reduction matters. The victims -- not just their victims, but everyone who gets to be reminded of their own trauma every time these abusers get paraded across the public sphere -- matter. That's your ethical concern.
Jesus Christ.
posted by schadenfrau at 1:31 PM on March 11, 2019 [17 favorites]
i'm more inclined to reject art by people who did their crimes or misdeeds when they knew what they were doing was wrong, criminal, or immoral. i'm not excusing heinous acts done in, say, the 17th century by classical composers by any means, but i have to consider the sort of things r. kelly did as being worse, in that he was knowingly violating his victims' rights and bodies under the rules our shared society held him to.
obviously, this argument only goes so far (the mere fact that the spanish inquisition was legal under its own rules doesnt excuse its obvious evil), but i do think it's worth distinguishing something that happened last year from something that happened 300 years ago.
posted by wibari at 1:34 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
obviously, this argument only goes so far (the mere fact that the spanish inquisition was legal under its own rules doesnt excuse its obvious evil), but i do think it's worth distinguishing something that happened last year from something that happened 300 years ago.
posted by wibari at 1:34 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
But somebody like Beck who I know to be from a family of Scientologists and who hasn't ever really offered a satisfactory perspective on it -- my tendency is to give his stuff a miss, and even to hear a creepiness in it that I wouldn't otherwise.
Ok, so Scientologists are out. No more Issac Hayes. What about Catholics? That's an organization that has been a front for sexual abusers for literally centuries.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:35 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
Ok, so Scientologists are out. No more Issac Hayes. What about Catholics? That's an organization that has been a front for sexual abusers for literally centuries.
posted by vibrotronica at 1:35 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
This isn't a thread to hash out which artists must be rejected. That doesn't mean the issue isn't worth exploring and thinking about, especially what you personally are willing to support.
posted by agregoli at 1:38 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 1:38 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
There's tons of other examples current and historical. Fuck those guys but the music is not them.
But especially in current context, the music is very much them.
And there is so much music to replace theirs, and looking at historical music, also music made by women and minorities, who are very overshadowed by The Great Men. Were they as good as those Great Men? I'm no expert, but if we don't perform their music, how can we even start to compare them?
posted by filthy light thief at 1:39 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
But especially in current context, the music is very much them.
And there is so much music to replace theirs, and looking at historical music, also music made by women and minorities, who are very overshadowed by The Great Men. Were they as good as those Great Men? I'm no expert, but if we don't perform their music, how can we even start to compare them?
posted by filthy light thief at 1:39 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
If I have to watch/read/listen to something by an artist who has raped or assaulted others, I will find a way to do it where they wouldn't benefit.
I was about to say that I definitely think people shouldn't spend money to enrich these folks, but I do wonder what the ethics are of say, already listening to Michael Jackson CD's you purchased ages ago. Assuming you can stomach listening to the music any more after these things, anyway, you're not enriching MJ at this point by buying something new. I don't offer this as a defense, mind you, but it seems like the primary idea behind boycotting/canceling is to make sure the abuser doesn't profit from you any more, and hopefully this applies to others too.
What about Catholics? That's an organization that has been a front for sexual abusers for literally centuries.
I would not want to be a practicing Catholic, not that I ever have been.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
I was about to say that I definitely think people shouldn't spend money to enrich these folks, but I do wonder what the ethics are of say, already listening to Michael Jackson CD's you purchased ages ago. Assuming you can stomach listening to the music any more after these things, anyway, you're not enriching MJ at this point by buying something new. I don't offer this as a defense, mind you, but it seems like the primary idea behind boycotting/canceling is to make sure the abuser doesn't profit from you any more, and hopefully this applies to others too.
What about Catholics? That's an organization that has been a front for sexual abusers for literally centuries.
I would not want to be a practicing Catholic, not that I ever have been.
posted by jenfullmoon at 1:41 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
Cool to have a choice about whether to patronize abusers, a choice that you can debate endlessly, as though it's some abstracted ethical exercise, rather than having a visceral adrenal reaction that causes you measurable physiological and psychological harm and that makes that choice for you, I guess.
Perhaps you weren't being snarky, but you were being privileged af.
You sorta twisted the point around entirely. If you aren't actively trying to find out the history of those artists and works out like and only wait until someone else makes the information public, that's privilege working. The information on R Kelly and Michael Jackson has been known for years, but only recently have some started to wonder if they should listen to the music or not. There are like stories in the backgrounds of many artists and works if you look, but if your stance is I'm only going to object once it becomes sufficiently famous enough an incident that I can no longer ignore it, then your ethical stance is open to some question. Which was my point and why I don't offer an easy af answer.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:44 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
Perhaps you weren't being snarky, but you were being privileged af.
You sorta twisted the point around entirely. If you aren't actively trying to find out the history of those artists and works out like and only wait until someone else makes the information public, that's privilege working. The information on R Kelly and Michael Jackson has been known for years, but only recently have some started to wonder if they should listen to the music or not. There are like stories in the backgrounds of many artists and works if you look, but if your stance is I'm only going to object once it becomes sufficiently famous enough an incident that I can no longer ignore it, then your ethical stance is open to some question. Which was my point and why I don't offer an easy af answer.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:44 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
So I never knew about Beethoven shitting on the floor. But I’m not going to NOT REMEMBER or consider that when I hear Beethoven again.
We can’t just compartmentalize. Things will be easier or harder to listen to - or are unlistenable. Only you can decide what is too much for you.
It would be impossible for me to live without consuming art from trash men, but I trust my barometer. Maybe Someone’s works can get a pass a century later if we insist on consuming them with context.
Is the confusion that we want a hard and fast rule for evil? We may not get it. And standards will change with time.
The one thing we can do is listen to victims and focus on defending the disempowered rather than the artist genius. It’s not terribly complicated...? To me...?
posted by Dressed to Kill at 1:49 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
We can’t just compartmentalize. Things will be easier or harder to listen to - or are unlistenable. Only you can decide what is too much for you.
It would be impossible for me to live without consuming art from trash men, but I trust my barometer. Maybe Someone’s works can get a pass a century later if we insist on consuming them with context.
Is the confusion that we want a hard and fast rule for evil? We may not get it. And standards will change with time.
The one thing we can do is listen to victims and focus on defending the disempowered rather than the artist genius. It’s not terribly complicated...? To me...?
posted by Dressed to Kill at 1:49 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
there is a line to be drawn where a problematic artist is still benefiting monetarily from their art
The Michael Jackson estate are suing HBO over the documentary alleging that “HBO has disparaged Jackson’s legacy by airing a one-sided hit piece against Jackson based exclusively on the false accounts of two proven, serial perjurers.”
so they seem like assholes over the whole thing and I can't say I'd be comfortable with them earning money on his legacy if this is what they're doing with it
posted by BungaDunga at 1:50 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
The Michael Jackson estate are suing HBO over the documentary alleging that “HBO has disparaged Jackson’s legacy by airing a one-sided hit piece against Jackson based exclusively on the false accounts of two proven, serial perjurers.”
so they seem like assholes over the whole thing and I can't say I'd be comfortable with them earning money on his legacy if this is what they're doing with it
posted by BungaDunga at 1:50 PM on March 11, 2019 [7 favorites]
One thing I think about in regards of how to deal with creative work by terrible people is how much their terribleness has bled into the work they created. I think of this especially in regards to Woody Allen, whose films are rife with author-insert characters engaging in the same predatory behavior towards younger women that he is known to have done in real life. You can't separate the art from the artist in cases like that.
posted by SansPoint at 1:51 PM on March 11, 2019 [23 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 1:51 PM on March 11, 2019 [23 favorites]
I wonder a lot about people who have tattoos of lyrics from e.g. Ryan Adams. It's easier to turn off a song than to have a tattoo altered or removed.
posted by reductiondesign at 1:56 PM on March 11, 2019
posted by reductiondesign at 1:56 PM on March 11, 2019
So the brief research I've done re: Beethoven is that he had multiple unemptied chamber pots and was generally paranoid and messy - pointing to him maybe being mentally unwell - but nothing about pooping on the floor and having his landlady clean it up. So if someone has a link to a reliable source for that particular datapoint, please post it.
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:00 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by grumpybear69 at 2:00 PM on March 11, 2019 [5 favorites]
I'd really like to know more about the Bach biting his thumb thing. Did he quarrel?
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:07 PM on March 11, 2019 [16 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 2:07 PM on March 11, 2019 [16 favorites]
There are like stories in the backgrounds of many artists and works if you look, but if your stance is I'm only going to object once it becomes sufficiently famous enough an incident that I can no longer ignore it, then your ethical stance is open to some question.
There's ignoring it, and then there's just...not knowing. Nowadays, our media consumption and pop culture landscape are nowhere near the kind of monolithic that they were at the height of Michael Jackson's fame. We're all of us listening to and watching in our own bubbles, to artists at wildly differing levels of fame and cultural saturation. The way a lot of us discover new music now is contextless: Spotify's not telling you anything about an artist apart from "the algorithm suggests you'll like this" when it shows up on your weekly Discover playlist. Youtube decides if you like x you'll probably like y, and doesn't do anything beyond provide you a link to the channel or video, and who knows if that's something you actually like or care about, or if you just followed a link or two to something you didn't end up liking at all.
Take a look at your playlists: what do you know about each artist on them? Do you know anything? Do you have to? Is it a reasonable or achievable expectation for us all to research every single artist whose music we own or consume? Should we only do it for artists we're active fans of? Should we do it before we purchase anything from that artist?
I don't think there are any definite answers to any of these questions! I just think it's worth pointing them out because your knowledge of whether a given artist is problematic or not is not solely a function of privilege. We do not all consume art in the same ways, and we all have varying levels of access or ability to access knowledge about the artists whose work we do patronize. Most of us here are, obviously, Extremely Online, but there are huge swathes of people who aren't. They're less likely to know or find out about how such and such person is Cancelled for being a literal criminal or abuser or whatever, if said person isn't as famous as the likes of R. Kelly.
Personally, the number of my favorite music artists about whom I know anything in detail about their personal lives or background is fairly limited. I'd find out if they did something awful, eventually, probably. But if an idle google of "artist album review" or "artist album release" doesn't immediately bring up a string of news search results that are like "ARTIST ACCUSED OF STATUTORY RAPE," well, I'm unlikely to find out about any misdeeds.
posted by yasaman at 2:18 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
There's ignoring it, and then there's just...not knowing. Nowadays, our media consumption and pop culture landscape are nowhere near the kind of monolithic that they were at the height of Michael Jackson's fame. We're all of us listening to and watching in our own bubbles, to artists at wildly differing levels of fame and cultural saturation. The way a lot of us discover new music now is contextless: Spotify's not telling you anything about an artist apart from "the algorithm suggests you'll like this" when it shows up on your weekly Discover playlist. Youtube decides if you like x you'll probably like y, and doesn't do anything beyond provide you a link to the channel or video, and who knows if that's something you actually like or care about, or if you just followed a link or two to something you didn't end up liking at all.
Take a look at your playlists: what do you know about each artist on them? Do you know anything? Do you have to? Is it a reasonable or achievable expectation for us all to research every single artist whose music we own or consume? Should we only do it for artists we're active fans of? Should we do it before we purchase anything from that artist?
I don't think there are any definite answers to any of these questions! I just think it's worth pointing them out because your knowledge of whether a given artist is problematic or not is not solely a function of privilege. We do not all consume art in the same ways, and we all have varying levels of access or ability to access knowledge about the artists whose work we do patronize. Most of us here are, obviously, Extremely Online, but there are huge swathes of people who aren't. They're less likely to know or find out about how such and such person is Cancelled for being a literal criminal or abuser or whatever, if said person isn't as famous as the likes of R. Kelly.
Personally, the number of my favorite music artists about whom I know anything in detail about their personal lives or background is fairly limited. I'd find out if they did something awful, eventually, probably. But if an idle google of "artist album review" or "artist album release" doesn't immediately bring up a string of news search results that are like "ARTIST ACCUSED OF STATUTORY RAPE," well, I'm unlikely to find out about any misdeeds.
posted by yasaman at 2:18 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
The idea that we're all somehow (partly) personally responsible for the sins of an artist who turns out to have done something wrong because we consumed their art seems absurd to me. I don't think it's possible for individuals to police the behavior of the artists producing the art those individuals consume. Sure, if you find the actions of R. Kelly or whomever make the experience of consuming their art a bad one, then stop consuming it. But I reject out of hand the idea that the way to address bad behavior is via boycott of their artistic output. The way to address it is the same as we use for non-artist abusers: the legal system. I'm not saying that's a perfect solution but to extend the responsibility to J Random Radio Listener makes little practical sense in my mind.
posted by axiom at 2:27 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
posted by axiom at 2:27 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
The Talking Simpsons podcast just put up a good episode discussing the decision by James Brooks, Matt Groening, and Al Jean to pull the Season Three premiere episode "Stark Raving Dad", which features the voice of Michael Jackson, from rerun syndication, streaming, and future DVD/Blu-Ray box sets:
"It feels clearly the only choice to make," "Simpsons" executive producer James L. Brooks told the Wall Street Journal. "The guys I work with — where we spend our lives arguing over jokes — were of one mind on this."posted by Sangermaine at 2:34 PM on March 11, 2019 [3 favorites]
The idea that we're all somehow (partly) personally responsible for the sins of an artist who turns out to have done something wrong because we consumed their art seems absurd to me.
That does sound like a fairly absurd argument. That is not the argument that most people would put forward in support of not consuming that artist's work (though it's the Internet, I'm sure someone has).
When I find a varied group of otherwise basically reasonable people supporting a particular position, and the only rationale for the position I can think of is absurd, I generally take that as a sign that perhaps I have not (or have not wanted to) grasped the rationale(s) fully.
posted by praemunire at 2:46 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
That does sound like a fairly absurd argument. That is not the argument that most people would put forward in support of not consuming that artist's work (though it's the Internet, I'm sure someone has).
When I find a varied group of otherwise basically reasonable people supporting a particular position, and the only rationale for the position I can think of is absurd, I generally take that as a sign that perhaps I have not (or have not wanted to) grasped the rationale(s) fully.
posted by praemunire at 2:46 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
When someone puts a work of art out into the world ... author, musician, painter, actor ... it's like sending grown children out into the world.
It must stand on its own, and I don't need *to know anything* about the person(s) who created it. In fact, in most cases, I'd rather not. If people choose to put them on a pedastal, maybe they need to rethink that.
Artists/creatives are unusual people, who often go through unusual struggles, but with a gift honed by discipline and now and then, in their finest moments, they create masterpieces. I hear *that*, I see *that*, I honor *that* ... because it was created by a human being, not a god.
And maybe this: perfection cannot create.
posted by Twang at 3:10 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
It must stand on its own, and I don't need *to know anything* about the person(s) who created it. In fact, in most cases, I'd rather not. If people choose to put them on a pedastal, maybe they need to rethink that.
Artists/creatives are unusual people, who often go through unusual struggles, but with a gift honed by discipline and now and then, in their finest moments, they create masterpieces. I hear *that*, I see *that*, I honor *that* ... because it was created by a human being, not a god.
And maybe this: perfection cannot create.
posted by Twang at 3:10 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
Twang: What happens when the artist is also the art? Michael Jackson didn't just write record pop songs, he had a highly visible public persona as an entertainer and performer that was as much a part of his body of work as anything else. Other musicians and performers that were his contemporaries did the same, to be sure, but not to the same extent. That's what makes the entire situation thorny. This is a person who is embedded in the popular culture to an extent that few human beings in recent memory ever were. You can't not appreciate Jackson's work without at least acknowledging how it was tied to Jackson as a public figure.
posted by SansPoint at 3:18 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
posted by SansPoint at 3:18 PM on March 11, 2019 [4 favorites]
‘You Just Have to Admit They’re Bad People’ and donate money to a good, related cause
buying indulgences for venial sins is back, baby
I prefer to call the “cabrón offsets”
posted by brand-gnu at 3:52 PM on March 11, 2019 [39 favorites]
buying indulgences for venial sins is back, baby
I prefer to call the “cabrón offsets”
posted by brand-gnu at 3:52 PM on March 11, 2019 [39 favorites]
One thing I often find missing from these conversations, and I think the reason some people get very defensive, is because of the way in which people invest themselves in the art that they like in serious ways, especially when it comes to music – music is, for many people, a huge part of their identity, and the amount of significance it can carry is immense. When we are only talking about these things in terms of consumption and either continuing to consume or abstaining, I think it effaces the ways that, if one feels such an affective attachment, merely abstaining doesn't undo the bonds already formed. I'm not defending R Kelly and personally find it sort of hard to imagine feeling this way about his music. My personal experience of this was with Conor Oberst, whose music was a massive part of early adolescence – he was accused of rape, and I had to reevaluate my entire relation to his musical oeuvre (lots of which is very adolescent anyhow and I should have reevaluated regardless). And then the accuser retracted the allegations, publicly apologizing, and without any apparent coercion. But so my point I think is that though there shouldn't be any question regarding whether or not we should continue to support artists who are bad people – it's an unequivocal no, we shouldn't – we should try to be less quick to shame people when it comes to them trying to figure out what that means about their relation to the art, because it's first and foremost about their relation to themselves rather than to the artist (especially when, well, I mean, that's great if you're actually buying music today but most people aren't and so aren't directly financially contributing to them, yknow)
posted by LeviQayin at 3:54 PM on March 11, 2019 [9 favorites]
posted by LeviQayin at 3:54 PM on March 11, 2019 [9 favorites]
The producers of The Simpsons really made the only responsible choice. That episode doesn't just feature Michael Jackson's voice; it's actually an argument for being complicit in his abuse. I think that's a fundamental issue here: what are the artists's motives, and will accepting the art lead us to reframe the way we perceive the artist and their actions? For instance, how should we react when Lennon sings
As for The Simpsons episode, here's a recap and my analysis: A laundry mistake causes Homer to go to work wearing a pink shirt. People think he's crazy, and he gets committed to a mental institution. While there, Homer meets an inmate, Leon Kompowsky, who seems to believe that he is Michael Jackson. Leon's voice was in fact provided by the real Michael Jackson.
Homer tells his family that he's bringing Michael Jackson home. Bart, who told his friends that Jackson was coming, is upset and embarrassed when they find out that it's actually a heavy white guy with delusions. Leon offers to help Bart with the underlying problem of the day: a birthday present for his sister Lisa. Bart shows Leon a picture of the real Michael Jackson and says
The way I understood Leon's message back then was "You want to do something nice for your sister, put aside your need to be right, for once, and just do it." The way I understand it now is "You know I'm a liar, but it's in your interest to pretend I'm not. I'm inviting you to become complicit." And that's what happens! Bart thinks he's accommodating Leon's delusion but he doesn't recant even when he knows that he's just promoting a falsehood. And why shouldn't he be - it makes everyone happier when he pretends.
This gaslighting is amazingly consistent with Jackson's own multi-levelled image: he's crazy - he's not crazy, just sad - he's actually trying to make people happy - he's not hurting anyone. Now we know that this smoke concealed a long-running rape machine, but Jackson and his staff were running a complex, multi-levelled program of deception and limited hangouts that made the truth unclear. A reference to the rumours even appears in the actual script, which Jackson had approval over:
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on March 11, 2019 [22 favorites]
I used to be cruel to my womanYou can absolutely read this as I think Lennon meant it: a confession made by someone who is no longer a misogynist. But I think that that's a very uncritical reading; Lennon also wanted people to excuse his gendered violence on the grounds that he was trying, that he was "getting better".
I beat her and kept her apart from the things that she loved
Man, I was mean but I'm changing my scene
And I'm doing the best that I can
As for The Simpsons episode, here's a recap and my analysis: A laundry mistake causes Homer to go to work wearing a pink shirt. People think he's crazy, and he gets committed to a mental institution. While there, Homer meets an inmate, Leon Kompowsky, who seems to believe that he is Michael Jackson. Leon's voice was in fact provided by the real Michael Jackson.
Homer tells his family that he's bringing Michael Jackson home. Bart, who told his friends that Jackson was coming, is upset and embarrassed when they find out that it's actually a heavy white guy with delusions. Leon offers to help Bart with the underlying problem of the day: a birthday present for his sister Lisa. Bart shows Leon a picture of the real Michael Jackson and says
Bart: Hey looneytunes, this is what Michael Jackson looks like. You look like a big, fat mental patient.So Bart goes along with Leon's claim to be Jackson, they write a nice song, everybody's happy. Then Leon reveals that his desire to make people happy was why he adopted the apparent delusion in the first place. He's not crazy after all, he's just a really nice guy accommodating our need to be deceived.
[...]
Leon: Either Michael Jackson is working in a recording studio in L.A or he's here with you, willing to work on this song. It's your choice.
So long.
The way I understood Leon's message back then was "You want to do something nice for your sister, put aside your need to be right, for once, and just do it." The way I understand it now is "You know I'm a liar, but it's in your interest to pretend I'm not. I'm inviting you to become complicit." And that's what happens! Bart thinks he's accommodating Leon's delusion but he doesn't recant even when he knows that he's just promoting a falsehood. And why shouldn't he be - it makes everyone happier when he pretends.
This gaslighting is amazingly consistent with Jackson's own multi-levelled image: he's crazy - he's not crazy, just sad - he's actually trying to make people happy - he's not hurting anyone. Now we know that this smoke concealed a long-running rape machine, but Jackson and his staff were running a complex, multi-levelled program of deception and limited hangouts that made the truth unclear. A reference to the rumours even appears in the actual script, which Jackson had approval over:
Leon: Bart, think. What happens to you when you turn eight?This is a pretty clear implication, delivered in a deniable way - "That line is about Lisa turning eight, not about Jackson pretending to be a kid!" Was this bit put in by the writers? Was it inserted by Jackson? Who knows? It's all part of the gaslighting, and we're all complicit.
Bart: Well, your training wheels come off your bike...
Leon: Good. That's good.[plays and sings] Your training wheels come off your bike, You start to notice boys you like. Hee hee hee!
Bart: You're just putting that in because it's commercial.
Leon: [chuckles]
posted by Joe in Australia at 3:56 PM on March 11, 2019 [22 favorites]
the way in which people invest themselves in the art that they like in serious ways, especially when it comes to music – music is, for many people, a huge part of their identity, and the amount of significance it can carry is immense
None of us are sixteen years old and living and dying for the next album, right? We are all grown-ups here, right? Do we expect grown people to have the basic moral capacity to recognize that something they like, even something they identify with, may be hurtful to others, or don't we? I'm not even talking about what the correct response to the harm is here, which is a complicated question without obvious answers. I'm talking about the willingness to recognize that the harm occurred.
we should try to be less quick to shame people when it comes to them trying to figure out what that means about their relation to the art,
Maybe we could also consider trying to restrain the apparently nigh-irresistible compulsion to find a way to make ourselves victims in this situation, rather than the actual victims. I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse.
posted by praemunire at 4:24 PM on March 11, 2019 [9 favorites]
None of us are sixteen years old and living and dying for the next album, right? We are all grown-ups here, right? Do we expect grown people to have the basic moral capacity to recognize that something they like, even something they identify with, may be hurtful to others, or don't we? I'm not even talking about what the correct response to the harm is here, which is a complicated question without obvious answers. I'm talking about the willingness to recognize that the harm occurred.
we should try to be less quick to shame people when it comes to them trying to figure out what that means about their relation to the art,
Maybe we could also consider trying to restrain the apparently nigh-irresistible compulsion to find a way to make ourselves victims in this situation, rather than the actual victims. I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse.
posted by praemunire at 4:24 PM on March 11, 2019 [9 favorites]
Wow I completely agree about the Simpson's episode, but I'm not sure I can articulate why.
posted by aspersioncast at 6:02 PM on March 11, 2019
posted by aspersioncast at 6:02 PM on March 11, 2019
I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse.
Is this really what the original commenter was trying to say?
posted by chrominance at 6:04 PM on March 11, 2019 [8 favorites]
Is this really what the original commenter was trying to say?
posted by chrominance at 6:04 PM on March 11, 2019 [8 favorites]
Was this bit put in by the writers? Was it inserted by Jackson? Who knows?
Per James L. Brooks in the episode's DVD commentary (via Wikipedia), Jackson wrote the song.
"[Jackson] also asked for a scene where he and Bart wrote a song together."
posted by box at 6:36 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
Per James L. Brooks in the episode's DVD commentary (via Wikipedia), Jackson wrote the song.
"[Jackson] also asked for a scene where he and Bart wrote a song together."
posted by box at 6:36 PM on March 11, 2019 [6 favorites]
I didn't see the Lego Batman movie because I didn't want Steve Mnuchin to get my money. I don't sing Ignition (Remix) at Karaoke anymore. I think of Rod Temperton when Michael Jackson comes on the radio (and then I fire up Heatwave on Spotify instead.)
posted by vespabelle at 7:18 PM on March 11, 2019
posted by vespabelle at 7:18 PM on March 11, 2019
I believe really good art informs me about an aspect of the human experience that I did not know, or could not express before. Really great art, though, disturbs or informs me enough to inspire me to be differently in the world than I was before I experienced it.
I think when people are willing to grapple with complex issues and come to some decision to act in that full knowledge -- whichever action they choose, as long as they are choosing awareness -- that's kind of a triumph of art. Like...quite honestly, I didn't think there was anyone who believed that Michael Jackson's sleepovers with kids were innocent, until this documentary broke. At first I was kind of angry/astonished, like really. But now I see it as a wave of new willingness, of new converts to the cause, so to speak, of understanding that people can be really talented, rich, famous, iconic...and still have committed atrocious and evil acts.
I really don't care if they burn their CDs or buy more tracks on iTunes if only they will keep that awareness in mind so that when their neighbour's child is rumoured to have been caught with her pants down behind the altar with the pastor, they will allow themselves to consider that maybe the pastor who gives the amazing sermons is also a child molester. To understand the term grooming. To understand that you can't divide the world into good and bad people as easily as the bad people would like you to think.
Not because they have come to hate the artist they loved once -- I really don't care if you hold love or hatred for Michael Jackson's Thriller in your heart -- but because the original art, and the subsequent story-telling, kept them interested long enough to pay attention.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:04 PM on March 11, 2019 [12 favorites]
I think when people are willing to grapple with complex issues and come to some decision to act in that full knowledge -- whichever action they choose, as long as they are choosing awareness -- that's kind of a triumph of art. Like...quite honestly, I didn't think there was anyone who believed that Michael Jackson's sleepovers with kids were innocent, until this documentary broke. At first I was kind of angry/astonished, like really. But now I see it as a wave of new willingness, of new converts to the cause, so to speak, of understanding that people can be really talented, rich, famous, iconic...and still have committed atrocious and evil acts.
I really don't care if they burn their CDs or buy more tracks on iTunes if only they will keep that awareness in mind so that when their neighbour's child is rumoured to have been caught with her pants down behind the altar with the pastor, they will allow themselves to consider that maybe the pastor who gives the amazing sermons is also a child molester. To understand the term grooming. To understand that you can't divide the world into good and bad people as easily as the bad people would like you to think.
Not because they have come to hate the artist they loved once -- I really don't care if you hold love or hatred for Michael Jackson's Thriller in your heart -- but because the original art, and the subsequent story-telling, kept them interested long enough to pay attention.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:04 PM on March 11, 2019 [12 favorites]
Urgh I'm grappling with this on a kind of second-degree level. My most favourite artist ever, Darren Hayes, is a massive fan of Michael Jackson, probably more than I am a fan of his and that's saying something. Darren's usually pretty savvy with things like #metoo and such, but when it came to MJ he was definitely on the "the accusers are lying and taking advantage of MJ" train. I understand why he'd be defensive, but it didn't bode well for me - firstly, because it felt like he wasn't willing to support child abuse survivors as much as he seemed to in the past but also now because I wonder: what if he's next?
Truthfully I've been wondering about this for a while now, from the moment Weinstein and Louis CK and such broke. I went through every damn song of his (I have a collection of about 200+) trying to find any dodgy lyrics - there were a few, but nothing that super stood out. I have quite a lot of his media and some merch. I even replicated one of his jackets as one of my performance costumes. I'm fairly known amongst my peers for being a Darren Hayes megafan.
I don't know what to do with his stuff if he ends up being revealed as a predator himself. I've known predators, including those I was close to. Some I hung around with for way too long because they promised they'd never hurt anyone; some I confronted the moment I found out and it didn't go so well. Darren and I have only maybe chatted on Twitter once a year or something, it's not like he'd remember who I was. So he wouldn't care if I disposed of all the stuff I have of his. Though part of me feels like throwing them into a bin would be wasteful or something, I don't know, I just don't think I can bear looking at them again.
The jacket though. I think I'm going to keep that. I made it by hand (ironically with the help of a former best friend who turned out to be a predator, though it would be many months until I found that out). I've worn it for a couple of different performances and photoshoots and people don't recognise it as a Darren Hayes jacket, I usually have to tell them where it's from. I'm building a bit of a name for myself here as a performance artist and people remember the jacket - they think of it as my jacket. (Especially now that I have a magician persona where the jacket is key to the character)
Maybe it would be intellectually dishonest to keep the jacket if bad news broke about its origins. But at the same time, I feel like I've made it mine enough that it would be an act of reclamation.
posted by divabat at 9:21 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
Truthfully I've been wondering about this for a while now, from the moment Weinstein and Louis CK and such broke. I went through every damn song of his (I have a collection of about 200+) trying to find any dodgy lyrics - there were a few, but nothing that super stood out. I have quite a lot of his media and some merch. I even replicated one of his jackets as one of my performance costumes. I'm fairly known amongst my peers for being a Darren Hayes megafan.
I don't know what to do with his stuff if he ends up being revealed as a predator himself. I've known predators, including those I was close to. Some I hung around with for way too long because they promised they'd never hurt anyone; some I confronted the moment I found out and it didn't go so well. Darren and I have only maybe chatted on Twitter once a year or something, it's not like he'd remember who I was. So he wouldn't care if I disposed of all the stuff I have of his. Though part of me feels like throwing them into a bin would be wasteful or something, I don't know, I just don't think I can bear looking at them again.
The jacket though. I think I'm going to keep that. I made it by hand (ironically with the help of a former best friend who turned out to be a predator, though it would be many months until I found that out). I've worn it for a couple of different performances and photoshoots and people don't recognise it as a Darren Hayes jacket, I usually have to tell them where it's from. I'm building a bit of a name for myself here as a performance artist and people remember the jacket - they think of it as my jacket. (Especially now that I have a magician persona where the jacket is key to the character)
Maybe it would be intellectually dishonest to keep the jacket if bad news broke about its origins. But at the same time, I feel like I've made it mine enough that it would be an act of reclamation.
posted by divabat at 9:21 PM on March 11, 2019 [2 favorites]
the way in which people invest themselves in the art that they like in serious ways, especially when it comes to music – music is, for many people, a huge part of their identity, and the amount of significance it can carry is immense
None of us are sixteen years old and living and dying for the next album, right? We are all grown-ups here, right? Do we expect grown people to have the basic moral capacity to recognize that something they like, even something they identify with, may be hurtful to others, or don't we? I'm not even talking about what the correct response to the harm is here, which is a complicated question without obvious answers. I'm talking about the willingness to recognize that the harm occurred.
we should try to be less quick to shame people when it comes to them trying to figure out what that means about their relation to the art,
Maybe we could also consider trying to restrain the apparently nigh-irresistible compulsion to find a way to make ourselves victims in this situation, rather than the actual victims. I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse.
Right, sorry, I was being careless, and I apologize, because I was definitely over-generalizing and not thinking about R Kelly so much... I'm not sure if you are saying that I am part of a we that is identifying myself as a victim – in the personal example I gave, no one shamed me, and if I had been I wouldn't have felt like a victim. When you say "I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse" – firstly, I didn't say and didn't mean to convey that the actual victims and the legitimation of their experiences should be called into question by our own biases and sentimental attachments and like, won't someone please think about "my" feelings first instead, and secondly (and relatedly) while I emphatically agree that we should not be more worried about shaming people, I, once again, didn't say that. I said "What I find missing from these conversations." because I generally find it's people with your position, which is also mine, and people like "DEATH OF THE AUTHOR and also I enjoy it and just let me enjoy and not have to think about where it's coming from"...your last point, once again, has nothing to do with what I said – did not say anything about rendering idols sinless, pretty much the opposite i'm pretty sure?
posted by LeviQayin at 10:46 PM on March 11, 2019
None of us are sixteen years old and living and dying for the next album, right? We are all grown-ups here, right? Do we expect grown people to have the basic moral capacity to recognize that something they like, even something they identify with, may be hurtful to others, or don't we? I'm not even talking about what the correct response to the harm is here, which is a complicated question without obvious answers. I'm talking about the willingness to recognize that the harm occurred.
we should try to be less quick to shame people when it comes to them trying to figure out what that means about their relation to the art,
Maybe we could also consider trying to restrain the apparently nigh-irresistible compulsion to find a way to make ourselves victims in this situation, rather than the actual victims. I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse.
Right, sorry, I was being careless, and I apologize, because I was definitely over-generalizing and not thinking about R Kelly so much... I'm not sure if you are saying that I am part of a we that is identifying myself as a victim – in the personal example I gave, no one shamed me, and if I had been I wouldn't have felt like a victim. When you say "I do not think we should be more worried about shaming people who have somehow managed to reach adulthood believing a guy who plays guitar well can do no wrong than about the well-being of the people he abused and the prevention of future abuse" – firstly, I didn't say and didn't mean to convey that the actual victims and the legitimation of their experiences should be called into question by our own biases and sentimental attachments and like, won't someone please think about "my" feelings first instead, and secondly (and relatedly) while I emphatically agree that we should not be more worried about shaming people, I, once again, didn't say that. I said "What I find missing from these conversations." because I generally find it's people with your position, which is also mine, and people like "DEATH OF THE AUTHOR and also I enjoy it and just let me enjoy and not have to think about where it's coming from"...your last point, once again, has nothing to do with what I said – did not say anything about rendering idols sinless, pretty much the opposite i'm pretty sure?
posted by LeviQayin at 10:46 PM on March 11, 2019
This gaslighting is amazingly consistent with Jackson's own multi-levelled image
See also Billie Jean:
Billie Jean is not my lover
She's just a girl who claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
She says I am the one, but the kid is not my son
That last line...
posted by gusottertrout at 11:43 PM on March 11, 2019
See also Billie Jean:
Billie Jean is not my lover
She's just a girl who claims that I am the one
But the kid is not my son
She says I am the one, but the kid is not my son
That last line...
posted by gusottertrout at 11:43 PM on March 11, 2019
I got rid of the two Michael Jackson albums I owned last week. I didn't listen to them often anyway because (hot take alert) I've always felt that MJ has, like, one greatest hits album's worth of good songs surrounded by tons of overproduced, saccharine filler. I continually struggle with the decision of whether or not to continue listening to artists like James Brown and Miles Davis, men who abused women, but in MJ's case it wasn't much of a sacrifice on my part. I've never liked any of R Kelly's music, so in that case muting him couldn't be easier, although my wife and I did own copies of the Trapped In The Closet DVDs that I'm embarrassed to admit we thought were hilarious at the time (i.e. well after many of the allegations of abuse had already surfaced).
On March 3rd I went to see Kamaal Williams; his band played a set and then he came out and DJ'd for a while. One of the songs he played was a remix of "Rock With You," which seemed like a very conscious decision to make on the night Leaving Neverland was premiering on HBO. The crowd went nuts and I danced (well, swayed...I'm old) along, but the whole thing kind of bummed me out because playing an MJ song that night seemed like a statement supporting the defense, so to speak.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:13 AM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
On March 3rd I went to see Kamaal Williams; his band played a set and then he came out and DJ'd for a while. One of the songs he played was a remix of "Rock With You," which seemed like a very conscious decision to make on the night Leaving Neverland was premiering on HBO. The crowd went nuts and I danced (well, swayed...I'm old) along, but the whole thing kind of bummed me out because playing an MJ song that night seemed like a statement supporting the defense, so to speak.
posted by The Card Cheat at 6:13 AM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
In my opinion down this path lies madness. I mean, you can only judge after the fact - after they have been caught. Who knows how many artists have crimed significantly but just not been caught yet, or were caught but you missed their story in the newspaper because they were no longer famous enough. I mean didn't the Modest Mouse front man do something? And there was a story here on the blue about David Bowie and Jimmy Page essentially doing the same thing R Kelly was first accused of, and Jimmy Page is still out walking around. Is he cool?
Everybody has their own hard line, but this seems just impossible to really enforce to me, short of never listening to music again.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:44 AM on March 12, 2019
Everybody has their own hard line, but this seems just impossible to really enforce to me, short of never listening to music again.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:44 AM on March 12, 2019
this seems just impossible to really enforce to me
Great news, then: No one is asking for it to be enforced. People are sharing their own lines, and how they navigate the grey areas, and sometimes even saying that they don't want to patronize businesses that have different lines or navigate the grey areas differently, but no one is taking away your albums or movies or books.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on March 12, 2019 [16 favorites]
Great news, then: No one is asking for it to be enforced. People are sharing their own lines, and how they navigate the grey areas, and sometimes even saying that they don't want to patronize businesses that have different lines or navigate the grey areas differently, but no one is taking away your albums or movies or books.
posted by Etrigan at 8:55 AM on March 12, 2019 [16 favorites]
Good to see you, internet fraud detective!! :)
posted by Melismata at 9:43 AM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by Melismata at 9:43 AM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
No one is asking for it to be enforced.
I meant 'enforced' as in your strict own personal code, not by the COPS. OF COURSE. IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE CLARIFIED.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:43 AM on March 12, 2019
I meant 'enforced' as in your strict own personal code, not by the COPS. OF COURSE. IT DIDN'T NEED TO BE CLARIFIED.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:43 AM on March 12, 2019
Most of the time, on this topic, people often do use words like enforce in the way I assumed you meant. Seems like I wasn't the only one that had no idea you were talking about enforcing internal rules on yourself with regards to music, so personally, I appreciated the pushback and clarification.
posted by agregoli at 9:54 AM on March 12, 2019
posted by agregoli at 9:54 AM on March 12, 2019
Further information about the assault charges against Brock--including stories removed from The Stranger's website--here. (CTRL+F "Samantha M. Shapiro")
posted by pxe2000 at 10:26 AM on March 12, 2019
posted by pxe2000 at 10:26 AM on March 12, 2019
As a Simpsons fan, my initial reaction to the news about "Stark Raving Dad" was displeasure. Then I remembered that when Homer asks MJ/Leon to list his last 4 dates to the Emmys, one of the names mentioned is Emmanuel Lewis.
...yyyeeah, fuck that.
posted by zeusianfog at 12:27 PM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
...yyyeeah, fuck that.
posted by zeusianfog at 12:27 PM on March 12, 2019 [1 favorite]
Just want to talk briefly about Tina Turner. I think it's arguable that Tina's success is due at least in part to Ike, who, as we all know, was an abuser. And the violence she suffered at his hand clearly informed her later work. It's painful to listen to, but I can't just say "no" because of the pain. Because there's beauty that's come out of it. And to shy away would be fail to acknowledge Tina's lived experience. A lot of her life was painful and ugly, and Ike was responsible for a lot of that, and he's clearly a villain. But as context, it informs her art, and makes it more poignant.
So much of woman-created music is about the bullshit they've suffered through, sometimes at the hands of society, sometimes specific horrible men. I wouldn't wish the pain on any of them, but given that it's happened, and what's grown there is so important, I have to celebrate it. With damp eyes, though.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:33 PM on March 12, 2019 [2 favorites]
So much of woman-created music is about the bullshit they've suffered through, sometimes at the hands of society, sometimes specific horrible men. I wouldn't wish the pain on any of them, but given that it's happened, and what's grown there is so important, I have to celebrate it. With damp eyes, though.
posted by seanmpuckett at 12:33 PM on March 12, 2019 [2 favorites]
Tina Turner would have been a star with or without Ike. She herself wasn't an abuser (that I am aware of) so it's a really different situation than what we are discussing.
posted by agregoli at 12:54 PM on March 12, 2019 [13 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:54 PM on March 12, 2019 [13 favorites]
"“Once we start doing our research we’re not going to have much left because it seems like all really talented people are sick.”
That's a cop-out."
Is it a cop-out? If we started investigating too deeply literally any human being to be alive right now or to have ever lived or to have yet to live, including everyone in these comments, we'd come to the conclusion they're shit people. It's a fundamental core property of our species-- every infant, every sperm and egg, every dividing human cell contain the seeds of evil and inevitably will occasionally tend to and grow that evil, whether through malice or circumstance of existence. It's not hard to argue that even the act of using this computer to connect to this website to post a comment is itself a series of decisions I've made that ultimately contribute to bad things in the world. Whole religions have been founded on the notion that people are fundamentally garbage. To enjoy anything from and to interact with another human being necessarily involves some degree of moral compromise.
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:12 AM on March 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
That's a cop-out."
Is it a cop-out? If we started investigating too deeply literally any human being to be alive right now or to have ever lived or to have yet to live, including everyone in these comments, we'd come to the conclusion they're shit people. It's a fundamental core property of our species-- every infant, every sperm and egg, every dividing human cell contain the seeds of evil and inevitably will occasionally tend to and grow that evil, whether through malice or circumstance of existence. It's not hard to argue that even the act of using this computer to connect to this website to post a comment is itself a series of decisions I've made that ultimately contribute to bad things in the world. Whole religions have been founded on the notion that people are fundamentally garbage. To enjoy anything from and to interact with another human being necessarily involves some degree of moral compromise.
posted by GoblinHoney at 11:12 AM on March 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
they call us human for a reason.
they being we, of course
posted by philip-random at 11:21 AM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
they being we, of course
posted by philip-random at 11:21 AM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
It's a cop out, absolutely. Because "all humans are garbage" is a silly and damaging notion, and stars can be messed up, sure, but all talented people are not monsters.
posted by agregoli at 12:12 PM on March 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:12 PM on March 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
It’s a cop out. It’s a slippery slope fallacious argument. It’s excusing abuse by lumping it in with every personal failing of every artist. It’s saying “There’s no ethical consumption, so fuck it, don’t cut yourself out of society” as if that were the only option.
Also the notion that abusive behavior, shittiness, or personal pain is part of defining what makes an artist talented is really really not a great idea to hold.
posted by Monochrome at 12:41 PM on March 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
Also the notion that abusive behavior, shittiness, or personal pain is part of defining what makes an artist talented is really really not a great idea to hold.
posted by Monochrome at 12:41 PM on March 13, 2019 [5 favorites]
I have already invested too much time into MJ, and have gone back and forth a few times over the course of life in liking or disliking him. I have decided his art and music is good, and that is informed by the sick twisted background that it came out of. In that way it is pretty symbolic of most 20th c. US culture.
Whatever was going on, exactly, with him and his victims/fans/friends, I don't think that's ever going to be entirely clear at this point.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:50 PM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
Whatever was going on, exactly, with him and his victims/fans/friends, I don't think that's ever going to be entirely clear at this point.
posted by Meatbomb at 12:50 PM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
It was very clear in the documentary. Clear enough, at least.
posted by agregoli at 12:53 PM on March 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by agregoli at 12:53 PM on March 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
Many, many years ago, back when the initial allegations against Jackson were first raised, some friends of mine and I got into long heated arguments about him and his music. I took the side that he was likely an abuser and that made enjoying his creative work suspect as well. Since we were all young and rather caught up in our own self-certainty it was a all or nothing sort of argument, pick one side or the other. Over time I came to realize I was wrong, not about Jackson or that who he was had some meaningful connection to his work, but that it was all or nothing since I didn't really care all that much about his music one way or the other. I thought some of it was fine, but I was sick to death of the excessive attention he received and let that annoyance color my judgement without thinking about his music as it was received by others.
Some of my friends who were deeply invested in Jackson's work were choreographers, they got something from his music and dancing that I simply didn't. As time went on I heard more people found the same thing in his work and how it inspired them in their own lives and sometimes careers. There are a number of professional choreographers who owe their love of dance to Jackson.
Every year on Halloween students in the city I live in hold a big celebration of sorts where they reenact the Thriller dance number. At its height this they closed off a city street to fit all those participating in. Simply saying Jackson's music is tainted and need be thrown away because Jackson himself was a criminal doesn't remotely capture the totality of the situation. It'd be telling these people that their history is also tainted even though they had no connection to Jackson and were simply following along with the rest of the world in enjoying his music and assuming that the charges were false because they didn't amount to anything. Jackson's influence on the culture is just too large to hope to erase and still make sense of what came after, while the legacy of his work is too meaningful to some individual's own experiences to demand or hope they set aside.
It'd be a denial of history to try and pretend there weren't positive influences that came from the music even as there were deeply harmful consequences that came from Jackson's fame. The music and Jackson aren't entirely separate, but they aren't identical either. Once the music was taken up by the public it was no longer just Jackson's, but became something more. Jackson's talent made the music and one can plausibly suggest connections between it and his own perverse desires easily enough in hindsight.
The video and concept of the song Thriller, for example, plays with the image of a man who turns into a monster at night. Werewolf lore has long been tied to malevolent sexual desire if you want to pursue that idea. Almost everything about Jackson can be fit into some psychological profile of a disturbed individual, which was something that seemed evident to some of us at the time, but was also strongly argued against as well. Those of us who believed he was molesting children had our reasons and those who didn't believe, or didn't want to, had theirs, while Jackson himself went free and was feted everywhere in the culture.
Trying to parse out what should of happened, who should have or did know more than they let on only makes things more complicated. The Simpsons can dump Jackson's episode now, but they sure milked that cow happily for decades before hand. HBO is being sued by the Jackson family in part, evidently, because HBO is alleged to have signed a non-disparagement agreement with the Jacksons, suggesting some complicity in wanting to make money from him before they decided to make money off him in a different way now that he's long dead. Other artists worked with Jackson and R Kelly when they were a help to them, but drop them once the sentiment about them changed.
These weren't outsiders like the students or choreographers who only knew the music and public image of Jackson and Kelly, but people who worked with them and saw something of their lifestyles. They benefited when times were good and now are trying to distance themselves when things look bad. That's a systemic problem that doesn't get fixed by saying it was just a couple bad individuals. Some people in the industry knew or had good reason to believe the accusers and did nothing out of cowardice, purposeful ignorance, or simply greed and took profits instead of doing anything.
Those people, entertainers and corporate backers are still doing the same things today and are completely immersed in the entertainment industry. It isn't just Jackson, but an entire history of hideous behavior that's mixed in with the good we get from the music and other arts. That history is inseparable from the works. It informs everything about the music we hear and the shows and movies we see. It isn't to place the blame equally on all parties, some are just trying to get work and do their thing, but when the system is corrupt, everything it touches is also rendered dirty, if not by action or choice, by being used or chosen over someone else. It's almost impossible to be morally pure investing in a tainted system, either as producer or consumer.
We can say after the fact Jackson's history is represented in his music and point to the lyrics and images as proof, as if that's all there is to it, but popular music is filled with lyrics and images that are every bit as troubling as Jackson's and worse. Do we assume the creators therefore are also bad, or that their songs don't fit the same pattern we claim for Jackson? How much responsibility should we take in trying to parse the works and suss out the history? How far down the line before we are comfortable with the complicity to the criminal behavior?
One doesn't have to look too far into the histories of Marvel, DC, Disney, Pixar, Sony, and on and on, to find unacceptable moral behavior, yet there isn't a call to, say, dump Toy Story 3 because John Lasseter wrote and produced it. That isn't a big deal to the culture like a famous performer is so it gets sort of set aside, sure, complaints are made about Lasseter getting a new job when he shouldn't, but there isn't a demand for the work to be shunned because of Lasseter's influence on it because no one cares as the popular attention isn't there as it is with Jackson. It isn't then just about being unable to separate the work from the artist because we don't hold to that with any consistency just like we don't parse all works with bad acts involved in the same fashion. We choose primarily based on our own comfort, not something in the work itself alone, nor in the artist alone.
Our response around moral questions in art is like a circuit breaker, when we feel something wrong strongly enough it breaks our connection to the work, but that feeling is an individual one that comes from our own histories as much as it does the work itself. Because of that when we judge artists and works we are completely tied in to our own experience, which is why its so difficult for those who've brought the art into their own lives and made something for themselves with it to simply then cut it out of their lives when they hear its creator may have done something awful. The work is no longer "out there" but "in here" as well. The idea that the morality of the artist and work are inseparable, when the maker is immoral the work must be too, is something that is strongly held only for a few activities and there is something a bit slippery about how that is applied.
Hating the artist and not wanting to associate with his work is obviously fine, there's absolutely no argument to be made that anyone should have to like Jackson's music for example, but saying that's all there is to it is something else entirely. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to say Derrick Rose wasn't a good basketball player because he was a rapist, but one can certainly say I don't want to see Derrick Rose on the basketball court or that seeing him still playing makes me not watch any games. Who Rose is can't be separated from his performance, but that isn't all there is to say about it just as is true for Neil de Grasse Tyson in astronomy or abusers in any field of endeavor. The arts have measures of ability just as sports or other activities do and talent can be recognized and appreciated for what it is even if one doesn't want to associate oneself with it.
How we draw lines depends on how invested we are in the thing involved. It's easy for me to hate R Kelly's music because I never cared about it much to begin with, I can ignore Jackson, or Clapton, or whoever's work that never mattered very much to me because I lose nothing, where work that I've more deeply invested in for myself would be something more difficult because my history is entangled with it.
The problem is more when we tie the work to the artist and start thinking of them as something more than just another person. I don't care how invested you are in any music or other art, when you start putting the artist on a pedestal and attaching yourself to them as someone "great" then there are problems. Being famous for one's skill needs to be different than being a "celebrity" where the person themselves is seen as better than others. Although the exact line is hard to define, there is a point where celebrity itself becomes inherently immoral for that reason. Pretending to exist or being seen as existing on a different plane than the rest of us "normal humans" is morally unacceptable and societally damaging when widely accepted. It's that as much as anything which caused the gap between awareness and action with Jackson, that allowed him to be celebrated even as he was being accused of terrible harm. Hate the music if you want to that's perfectly fine, but save more hate for the system that allows this sort of gross distortion of social values to take place and thrive.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:38 PM on March 13, 2019 [7 favorites]
Some of my friends who were deeply invested in Jackson's work were choreographers, they got something from his music and dancing that I simply didn't. As time went on I heard more people found the same thing in his work and how it inspired them in their own lives and sometimes careers. There are a number of professional choreographers who owe their love of dance to Jackson.
Every year on Halloween students in the city I live in hold a big celebration of sorts where they reenact the Thriller dance number. At its height this they closed off a city street to fit all those participating in. Simply saying Jackson's music is tainted and need be thrown away because Jackson himself was a criminal doesn't remotely capture the totality of the situation. It'd be telling these people that their history is also tainted even though they had no connection to Jackson and were simply following along with the rest of the world in enjoying his music and assuming that the charges were false because they didn't amount to anything. Jackson's influence on the culture is just too large to hope to erase and still make sense of what came after, while the legacy of his work is too meaningful to some individual's own experiences to demand or hope they set aside.
It'd be a denial of history to try and pretend there weren't positive influences that came from the music even as there were deeply harmful consequences that came from Jackson's fame. The music and Jackson aren't entirely separate, but they aren't identical either. Once the music was taken up by the public it was no longer just Jackson's, but became something more. Jackson's talent made the music and one can plausibly suggest connections between it and his own perverse desires easily enough in hindsight.
The video and concept of the song Thriller, for example, plays with the image of a man who turns into a monster at night. Werewolf lore has long been tied to malevolent sexual desire if you want to pursue that idea. Almost everything about Jackson can be fit into some psychological profile of a disturbed individual, which was something that seemed evident to some of us at the time, but was also strongly argued against as well. Those of us who believed he was molesting children had our reasons and those who didn't believe, or didn't want to, had theirs, while Jackson himself went free and was feted everywhere in the culture.
Trying to parse out what should of happened, who should have or did know more than they let on only makes things more complicated. The Simpsons can dump Jackson's episode now, but they sure milked that cow happily for decades before hand. HBO is being sued by the Jackson family in part, evidently, because HBO is alleged to have signed a non-disparagement agreement with the Jacksons, suggesting some complicity in wanting to make money from him before they decided to make money off him in a different way now that he's long dead. Other artists worked with Jackson and R Kelly when they were a help to them, but drop them once the sentiment about them changed.
These weren't outsiders like the students or choreographers who only knew the music and public image of Jackson and Kelly, but people who worked with them and saw something of their lifestyles. They benefited when times were good and now are trying to distance themselves when things look bad. That's a systemic problem that doesn't get fixed by saying it was just a couple bad individuals. Some people in the industry knew or had good reason to believe the accusers and did nothing out of cowardice, purposeful ignorance, or simply greed and took profits instead of doing anything.
Those people, entertainers and corporate backers are still doing the same things today and are completely immersed in the entertainment industry. It isn't just Jackson, but an entire history of hideous behavior that's mixed in with the good we get from the music and other arts. That history is inseparable from the works. It informs everything about the music we hear and the shows and movies we see. It isn't to place the blame equally on all parties, some are just trying to get work and do their thing, but when the system is corrupt, everything it touches is also rendered dirty, if not by action or choice, by being used or chosen over someone else. It's almost impossible to be morally pure investing in a tainted system, either as producer or consumer.
We can say after the fact Jackson's history is represented in his music and point to the lyrics and images as proof, as if that's all there is to it, but popular music is filled with lyrics and images that are every bit as troubling as Jackson's and worse. Do we assume the creators therefore are also bad, or that their songs don't fit the same pattern we claim for Jackson? How much responsibility should we take in trying to parse the works and suss out the history? How far down the line before we are comfortable with the complicity to the criminal behavior?
One doesn't have to look too far into the histories of Marvel, DC, Disney, Pixar, Sony, and on and on, to find unacceptable moral behavior, yet there isn't a call to, say, dump Toy Story 3 because John Lasseter wrote and produced it. That isn't a big deal to the culture like a famous performer is so it gets sort of set aside, sure, complaints are made about Lasseter getting a new job when he shouldn't, but there isn't a demand for the work to be shunned because of Lasseter's influence on it because no one cares as the popular attention isn't there as it is with Jackson. It isn't then just about being unable to separate the work from the artist because we don't hold to that with any consistency just like we don't parse all works with bad acts involved in the same fashion. We choose primarily based on our own comfort, not something in the work itself alone, nor in the artist alone.
Our response around moral questions in art is like a circuit breaker, when we feel something wrong strongly enough it breaks our connection to the work, but that feeling is an individual one that comes from our own histories as much as it does the work itself. Because of that when we judge artists and works we are completely tied in to our own experience, which is why its so difficult for those who've brought the art into their own lives and made something for themselves with it to simply then cut it out of their lives when they hear its creator may have done something awful. The work is no longer "out there" but "in here" as well. The idea that the morality of the artist and work are inseparable, when the maker is immoral the work must be too, is something that is strongly held only for a few activities and there is something a bit slippery about how that is applied.
Hating the artist and not wanting to associate with his work is obviously fine, there's absolutely no argument to be made that anyone should have to like Jackson's music for example, but saying that's all there is to it is something else entirely. It wouldn't make sense, for example, to say Derrick Rose wasn't a good basketball player because he was a rapist, but one can certainly say I don't want to see Derrick Rose on the basketball court or that seeing him still playing makes me not watch any games. Who Rose is can't be separated from his performance, but that isn't all there is to say about it just as is true for Neil de Grasse Tyson in astronomy or abusers in any field of endeavor. The arts have measures of ability just as sports or other activities do and talent can be recognized and appreciated for what it is even if one doesn't want to associate oneself with it.
How we draw lines depends on how invested we are in the thing involved. It's easy for me to hate R Kelly's music because I never cared about it much to begin with, I can ignore Jackson, or Clapton, or whoever's work that never mattered very much to me because I lose nothing, where work that I've more deeply invested in for myself would be something more difficult because my history is entangled with it.
The problem is more when we tie the work to the artist and start thinking of them as something more than just another person. I don't care how invested you are in any music or other art, when you start putting the artist on a pedestal and attaching yourself to them as someone "great" then there are problems. Being famous for one's skill needs to be different than being a "celebrity" where the person themselves is seen as better than others. Although the exact line is hard to define, there is a point where celebrity itself becomes inherently immoral for that reason. Pretending to exist or being seen as existing on a different plane than the rest of us "normal humans" is morally unacceptable and societally damaging when widely accepted. It's that as much as anything which caused the gap between awareness and action with Jackson, that allowed him to be celebrated even as he was being accused of terrible harm. Hate the music if you want to that's perfectly fine, but save more hate for the system that allows this sort of gross distortion of social values to take place and thrive.
posted by gusottertrout at 1:38 PM on March 13, 2019 [7 favorites]
And we're talking about someone who had more money than any of us would know what to do with...and if he had wanted help to manage these urges, he could have gotten it.
posted by agregoli at 2:47 PM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
posted by agregoli at 2:47 PM on March 13, 2019 [1 favorite]
I agree sexual abuse is a class of its own class on the spectrum of human horror and I see how in context of this conversation it was interpreted as trying to excuse it in light of the universal crappiness of beings. That was not my intention, I think it's immoral to financially enable rapists and abusers, full stop. I believe what I originally wrote how I intended, but this isn't an appropriate place for that discussion given we agree rapists are irredeemable in a way many offenses are not.
posted by GoblinHoney at 3:42 PM on March 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
posted by GoblinHoney at 3:42 PM on March 13, 2019 [2 favorites]
I kinda rankle at calling people like Jackson and Kelly "assholes." Even that feels like a form of hand wavery, of trying to reframe criminal activity as merely a distasteful personality quirk.
I mean, Alex Chilton was an asshole. He didn't like fans, didn't think he owed them anything, and felt their fixation on his work with Big Star or The Box Tops over his work with say, Tav Falco's Panther Burns or his solo stuff to be at best, something to roll his eyes at, and more likely, a reasonable basis for contempt. He would end shows with a sneering "Anything anyone else needs done for them or can I go?" He'd walk offstage from a huge excited crowd at a big show because he was bored.
But he didn't fucking rape people. He didn't fucking abuse kids.
The asshole spectrum and the criminal spectrum have some overlap, but they are not the same scale and it's dismissive to the point of gobsmackingly stupid to pretend they are
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:40 PM on March 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
I mean, Alex Chilton was an asshole. He didn't like fans, didn't think he owed them anything, and felt their fixation on his work with Big Star or The Box Tops over his work with say, Tav Falco's Panther Burns or his solo stuff to be at best, something to roll his eyes at, and more likely, a reasonable basis for contempt. He would end shows with a sneering "Anything anyone else needs done for them or can I go?" He'd walk offstage from a huge excited crowd at a big show because he was bored.
But he didn't fucking rape people. He didn't fucking abuse kids.
The asshole spectrum and the criminal spectrum have some overlap, but they are not the same scale and it's dismissive to the point of gobsmackingly stupid to pretend they are
posted by DirtyOldTown at 8:40 PM on March 18, 2019 [5 favorites]
« Older Saving The World 101 | "a marriage of picture and tale that is perfectly... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
That's a cop-out. Example A: Artists Are Releasing More Music Than Ever Before To Cash In On Streaming’s Open Floodgates (Uproxx) * Discogs is a collection of music releases** as submitted by people from around the world, like a Wikipedia for discographies. And like Wikipedia, it reflects what its users see and value as being worth their time to enter. -- ed.
** To quote Ani Difranco, "People used to make records, as in a record of an event; the event of people playing music in a room," but Discogs is focused on the cohesive whole packages of music, be they on physical media or digitally distributed. With the rise of digital distribution, the need to package a collection of songs as an album or EP is less critical, at least for most "typical" "western" musicians (Jamaican reggae-related releases come to mind as fitting a much more "digital era" style, where artists are more single-focused, not to mention the whole riddim culture).
Also, this is definitely a discussion where I am very sad to see so many men making these bold statements about how to listen to music from men who abuse women, and children. My dudes, take a seat, let's listen for a while.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:11 AM on March 11, 2019 [38 favorites]