These Musicians Were 'Canceled,' But People Kept Listening

December 11, 2019 12:05 PM

Rich Juzwiak Writes for Jezebel: Looking at the raw data of streaming music is enough to expose the conceptual fallacy of “cancel culture.” To subscribe to the notion that the public readily exerts its power to defrock a celebrity is to believe in a black-and-white binary, the absolute polarity of good and bad, the neat societal organization of punished and free. The truth is messier. Those who believe in and decry cancel culture also miss a crucial point: In order to enact its power, the public must have the will to do so.
posted by SpiffyRob (21 comments total)

Previously
posted by SpiffyRob at 12:06 PM on December 11, 2019

As an adult, one of the downsides of maintaining interest in pop music is that it positions you at the mercy of the people’s will. Until you are ready to just give up and be old

Yeah. I'm ready.

For all the complaining about "cancel culture" it seems more often than not that "cancelled" artists and such wind up being just fine. And this isn't new... Vince Neil of Mötley Crüe drove drunk and killed a passenger in his car and seriously injured people in another car, and it didn't really blunt their popularity at all. I had friends who liked the band and kept right on listening to them. (Looking at his wikipedia entry, it doesn't seem like he's exactly reformed since.)

It doesn't seem the public has the will to censure many artists. I wonder if that'll change at all as time goes on - thinking about the ethics of entertainment we consume seems like a newer ethical problem, and there's certainly no widespread agreement that if a creator is found to be a bad person that their existing work should be shunned.
posted by jzb at 1:18 PM on December 11, 2019 [4 favorites]

In the four weeks leading up to the broadcast of Leaving Neverland on HBO, Jackson averaged 14,000 spins per week at radio, but in the 31 weeks after the airing of the two-part doc (through the week of October 3), he was down to an average of around 11,000 spins. His presence has been reduced, not outright banished. (Keep in mind that because of “Thriller,” Halloween is MJ season, and these numbers don’t reflect the possible holiday uptick in airplay.)

78.6% of pre-documentary airplay levels, and the total number of 11,000 spins, seems like a slap on the wrist, and not a significant reduction in my eyes.

Radio is one thing, streaming media is another thing, especially given that self-reported listening to AM/FM radio among teens aged 13 and up declining by almost 50 percentage points between 2005 and 2016 (Variety, 2017), and I can't believe it's improved since then.

How many people are actively blocking "cancelled" artists? None, or not enough to cancel the uptick in interest:

More importantly, though, Jackson’s streams rose this year. If the radio is a democracy-dictatorship wherein the audience (through requests and listener feedback) has nominal say in what the powers that be allow on-air, streaming is the purer democratic metric, a direct indication of demand from listeners. And what they demanded this year was Jackson, whose streams rose 22.1 percent in the 31 weeks after Leaving Neverland aired. (Billboard also pointed out that this figure outpaced the streaming industry’s 21.8 percent growth. By virtue of the fact that more people are streaming, more streams wouldn’t necessarily signify a growing demand for an artist. Jackson’s gains are high enough, however, to suggest a growing demand.)
...
In fact, there are numerous examples of alleged transgressions seeming to attract audiences, not repel them. Take R. Kelly. His ability to sustain an active career in music despite allegations of sexual abuse of underage girls that go back decades is one thing; that his streams jumped 116 percent the day of the final airing of Lifetime’s Surviving R. Kelly docuseries is quite another.

And murder ballads are as popular as ever. People, by and large, are drawn to spectacles, and "cancel culture" is not changing that. Virtual rubber-necking, with the accused/ guilty getting more money from streaming media.

Spoiler: the only way to reduce streaming hits is to remove the artist's music from platforms.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:19 PM on December 11, 2019 [4 favorites]

I haven't listened to Ryan Adams since that story broke despite previously being a big fan. I still get recommendations for him all the time though on Google Play Music because of my prior listening habits. I wonder if part of what's maintaining the streaming numbers is due to that sort of thing. I doubt many people are going back to old playlists and deleting out these artists as well so if you made a playlist years ago and still listen to it those songs will still play. Even if you aren't actively seeking out the artist anymore you still may contribute to some streams.
posted by downtohisturtles at 1:26 PM on December 11, 2019 [10 favorites]

The best thing about "cancel culture" I've seen is on the generally-excellent Some More News.
posted by JHarris at 1:35 PM on December 11, 2019 [2 favorites]

I think that part of the point of cancel culture is missed here. When an artist is cancelled, part of the calculus is that you are demonetizing him/her. Jackson, being dead and all, cannot be deprived of royalties; he isn't making any. Unless you think his estate (read: his kids) were complicit, there isn't really anyone to punish.
posted by cadmus at 1:42 PM on December 11, 2019 [6 favorites]

Unless you think his estate (read: his kids) were complicit, there isn't really anyone to punish.

I think the argument for Jackson and other in this situation is that it's respectful to any survivors to set his music aside.

Note that, and I may have learned this via Metafilter, folks behind The Simpsons have elected to remove the MJ-focused episode from streaming and future pressings of the series on DVD & whatnot. Yes, Jackson himself is not going to be enriched, but maybe it'll give some comfort to people victimized by him.
posted by jzb at 1:53 PM on December 11, 2019 [6 favorites]

That was a depressing read. All those graphs showing streaming popularity spikes in response to news of artists' asshole or criminal behavior... I finished watching Surviving R. Kelly two weeks ago and was naively thinking that maybe the courage of the documentarians, and especially the survivors who spoke out, must have put at least a dent in his popularity.

From the article: "What to extract from this? An indication of general social irresponsibility on the part of music listeners who are at least apathetic (and, at times it seems, enthusiastic) about lining the pockets of men who are accused of doing very, very bad things? . . . A rather sophisticated ability to separate the art from the artist among contemporary music fans?"

Personally I find this attitude of, "*** I *** can separate the art from the artist, unlike you," indicative of "fuck victims, I'd rather entrench myself in my comfort zone, I don't give a shit who I'm enabling or what crimes they're committing or what shitty status quo I'm reinforcing."

I just went looking for a palate cleanser and found this about a Surviving R. Kelly follow-up, Part II: The Reckoning, that's going to air on Lifetime on Jan 3-4. Crossing fingers for legal consequences this time.
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 3:21 PM on December 11, 2019 [5 favorites]

I use streaming for music on my phone when I run. I absolutely do not interact with it at all except if they are playing something I don't like precisely when I finish a run.

I often wonder about the UX analysis done and decisions made by streaming services because they really ignore the use case of the hands free/no screen listener and instead are very focused on people who can look at their screens while listening.
posted by srboisvert at 3:23 PM on December 11, 2019 [1 favorite]

I don't think it's a hot take to say cancel culture is not a real thing. There is not a concerted effort to erase problematic artists/people from our culture, not any more than there ever was. Being exposed as a criminal/predator/asshole simply has simply been added to the list of shameful revelations that have negative commercial consequences.

The concerted effort is on the part of people promoting the idea that cancel culture exists. These are people who want to turn back the clock on which offenses should be career-killing. They also want to erase victims' recent gains in power when it comes to challenging those of higher status.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:26 PM on December 11, 2019 [21 favorites]

Or, to put it another way, the Venn diagram of conservatives troubled by cancel culture and conservatives who demanded the Dixie Chicks be blacklisted for criticizing the invasion of Iraq is a circle.

These are not people uncomfortable with the idea that some offenses should be career-killing. These are people uncomfortable with changing tides of popular opinion about what such transgressions should be. The right loved it when your career could fall apart for being revealed as a gay man or a sexually liberated woman. They hate it now that you can face consequences for sexually harassing your subordinates or being obnoxious and racist.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 3:40 PM on December 11, 2019 [49 favorites]

The concerted effort is on the part of people promoting the idea that cancel culture exists. These are people who want to turn back the clock on which offenses should be career-killing. They also want to erase victims' recent gains in power when it comes to challenging those of higher status.

It reminds me, as a rhetorical move, of the concept of "playing the race card". This phrase, iirc, began life as an expression of distrust for aspects of OJ Simpson's defense strategy, but was eagerly assimilated by people who desired a stereotyped, belittling dismissal of any discussion of racism in either history or contemporary society.
posted by thelonius at 3:40 PM on December 11, 2019 [4 favorites]

I feel like some of these bumps in the streaming graphs might be people doing lookie-loo searching when certain names are in the news. Take the Ryan Adams one--how many of those listens were people going, "Who? The Summer of 69 guy?"

The truth is, no one will ever be 'cancelled' so long as they can make money for someone else. Victor Salva literally filmed himself raping a 12-year-old boy (who was an actor in the movie Salva was directing), was convicted of the crime, did time, and then went on to make a bunch more movies (including at least one for Disney). Imdb says he has projects in pre-production right now. If the Weinstein stuff had come out during the peak Miramax period, I'll bet he would have been back in less than a year. People have known R. Kelly was skeezy for ages. How old was Aaliyah when he married her illegally? And the Jackson stories were out there since the early 90s.

I have a fair amount of physical media I've accumulated over the years, some of which is by people we now know are/were horrible. Some of it I still consume, some I don't. I'm not quite sure why I'm still willing to watch and enjoy Rosemary's Baby, but I can't even bear to look at my once much loved copy of The Mists of Avalon. Maybe because Rosemary is the work of many people, while Mists is a work straight from the mind of one single horrible person?
posted by lovecrafty at 6:22 PM on December 11, 2019 [9 favorites]

I change the channel when Michael Jackson comes on Sirius FM, but I doubt that affects well, anything.
posted by jenfullmoon at 8:27 PM on December 11, 2019 [2 favorites]

It depends on who your audience is and how much power you have. The quintessential example for me is still PWR BTTM, who are absolutely going to stay cancelled. Their target audience cares about this sort of thing, and they themselves had limited power at the combination of queer and new artist.
posted by vibratory manner of working at 10:57 PM on December 11, 2019 [4 favorites]

Yeah 'cancel culture isn't real' is a mantra repeated most loudly by the online segment that's been actively trying to destroy their favourite YouTuber for a while now.
posted by Space Coyote at 12:51 AM on December 12, 2019

Isn't “cancel culture” in the same category as “identity politics”, “grievance theory”, “postmodern Marxism”, “warmism” and other such shibboleths?
posted by acb at 3:28 AM on December 12, 2019 [3 favorites]

I was on a dancefloor this summer where lots of people were dancing to old 80s hits. When the DJ segued into Billie Jean some people stopped dancing right away. And as people left other people started to think about what they were dancing to and left as well. By the time the chorus hit the dance floor was empty. It was quite striking to see.
posted by Kattullus at 5:37 AM on December 12, 2019 [7 favorites]

At this point, I feel like whenever I discover a writer or an artist I have to pre-disengage because it seems not unlikely that they'll actually be an abuser of some kind - this is particularly but not exclusively true of men. I am way, way less likely to be a fan or an enthusiast about a specific person than I was a few years ago, because so many people I admired have turned out to not to be worth admiring. And it does cast a shadow on everyone - I'm sure that many of the writers and musicians I like are actually perfectly decent people, or at least good enough people not to rape anyone or hurl racist abuse, but because I'm always waiting for the surprise rape charges, etc, it just robs me of a lot of enthusiasm.

It's obviously a systemic problem and the problem is power - on the simplest level, the pervasive power of men over women, white people over BIPOC, adults over children. And then the power of the rich or relatively rich over the poor or relatively poor, and the power of the famous over the ordinary, and then the power of the big commercial systems over everyone else, since no one wants to kill the golden goose - better to make money and win awards for an abuser's work than forgo the money and the awards in the interests of justice.

More transparency and above all more equality are what we need to reduce instances of abuse. In general, people abuse when they are pretty sure they can get away with it.

I wish that people in the aggregate were such that we'd all hear about some rapist musician and stop listening to his music, but that doesn't happen - and it also relies on everyone hearing about it, and on there being no abuse-fatigue. When it seems like every famous man will probably turn out to be a rapist, I think this undercuts people's willingness to "cancel".

So anyway, "cancel culture" is only going to be effective in small communities with high transparency, relative equality and shared values.

We as a society need to work toward social responses to rape, racism and abuse that are administered in a transparent, visible and consistent way. And we need to make people more materially equal (whether that's literally in terms of money, in terms of access to resources, in terms of labor in the home, etc) so that abusers stop expecting that they can threaten and bully their victims because their victims fear for their physical safety and their ability to earn a living.

Whatever this looks like - a real welfare state, an anarchist utopia, whatever - we need to work against a system of very powerful individuals and conglomerates who can exploit average people along gender, race and wealth lines.
posted by Frowner at 5:43 AM on December 12, 2019 [6 favorites]

I'd like to see this data broken down by genre. Canceling happens way more in metal than any other genre it seems due to people being hidden racists/rapists/abusers/literally nazis, but I admit I still listen to certain bands even if one member has been canceled/ostracized...like Agalloch. You can't take Agalloch away from me.

Actually this happened with a local band I was involved with, and while people still support the band, the member was kicked out even though it was his brain child but there is definitely a lot of ignoring of behavior or claims until it explodes and then everyone acts shocked and scatters like roaches.
posted by Young Kullervo at 6:16 AM on December 12, 2019 [2 favorites]

the concept of "playing the race card". This phrase, iirc, began life as an expression of distrust for aspects of OJ Simpson's defense strategy,

Such might have been before the 1960's new laws to address the civil rights but my memory is after years of being beat up by Soviets over race the civil rights laws got passed thus one had a way where a race card would matter.

Now the internet and search engines have existed enough that if you look at Bush the Greater and Willie Horton you can find The Willie Horton television commercials in the 1988 Bush campaign constituted the classic "race card" case -- or, put another way, the classic controversy over whether they constituted a "race card," since no politician was about to admit using a device aimed at fomenting racial division. or Duke is, of course, a little more candid in playing the race card than his cleaned-up fellow Republican George Bush.
or WHAM! Paywall and this one behind the paywall I did not read but another example of the phrase.

These links were before the Simpson matter and cover more than one individual incident or person.

Alas pay walls and deleted web pages limit a public search and makes it sound like the phrase might be them VS others. But the words and a meaning are before Simpson and can be tied to the Civil Rights law precieved enforcement. And they might go all the way back to the Civil War.
posted by rough ashlar at 12:01 PM on December 12, 2019 [1 favorite]