Separating the artist from the art

[Graham]

Please forgive what is probably going to turn into something a bit rambling

(TL;DR - Can you happily reconcile listening to good music by unpleasant people?)

With the recent revelations about Kevin Spacey and the bloke from Brand New who's been revealed to be a sexual predator, it's got me thinking again about the artist/art issue. Will I watch The Usual Suspects again? Will I listen to the new Brand New record again? Probably. Will I feel uneasy about doing so? Definitely. As a fan of black metal, I've had this issue for a while, a quick history for the un-initiated: back in the early-mid 90s there was some criminal behaviour from members of certain Norwegian black metal bands - the drummer from Emperor was convicted of a homophobic murder, the guy behind one man band Burzum was convicted of murdering the guitarist from Mayhem. Now, I do listen to both Emperor and Burzum, but I tend to feel a bit uneasy when I do, less so with Emperor as it's just one member rather than the entire band, who was later replaced. Similarly, when Phil Anselmo got drunk and let his racist side out on stage a couple of years ago, I stopped listening to Pantera and Down for a bit, but eventually decided that my enjoyment of the songs was greater than my disapproval of un-acceptable behaviour from their frontman. Currently all four members of Decapitated are in prison in America waiting on trial for gang-rape, I will really regret not listening to The Negation or Nihility again, but if they're convicted, I doubt I will. Even if not, the taint will be difficult to remove.

Whilst my examples above mostly come from the metal genre (that being the one I'm most familiar with), there are plenty of others out there - Jimmy Page "dated" a 14 year old; realistically, I understand he held her prisoner, but a lot of us love Zeplin. As mentioned above The Usual Suspects and American Beauty are great films, but star Kevin Spacey; I've watched two Roman Polanksi films recently, and he was a child rapist too.

What I'm getting at is, when you find out a musician/actor/producer etc of a piece of art or entertainment that you enjoy is an abuser, a criminal, an anti-semite, racist etc, do you stop consuming their output completely? Or do you decide that the art trumps the artist and carry on listening to it, but feel it's tainted, or do you just not care at all?

[Jus Lukin]

-

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[EliasMooseblaster]

I've found myself on both sides of this awkward fence - on one side as a fan of The Who, around the time the police were investigating Pete Townshend's approach to "research"; and on the other side when Chris Brown released an album not long after his abusive relationship with Rihanna came to light. Back then, I decided to climb back up to my reserved seat on the fence, and I can't see myself coming down any time soon.

As Jus Lukin rightly points out, it's never going to be black and white. Some people who made great, challenging art were/are pretty horrible, and it's hard to judge how horrible they have to be before it taints what they created. To take a more trivial example, we repeatedly tell our kids not to take drugs, but then we play them classic albums made by people who were buying cocaine by the shoebox while recording them. Even one of the most extreme cases - the guy from Lostprophets - is more complex than at first glance. Of course the guy in question is the very definition of a monster, but if his bandmates honestly didn't know what he was up to then is it fair to tar them with the same brush? I knew a couple of people who were really into their music back in the day - I'd be interested to see whether they can still listen to any of it now.

PS A more recent example: I've got Parks and Recreation on DVD. At some point I'll feel like watching those again. Trouble is, knowing what I now know about Louis CK, do I now skip the series that he appeared in? I don't think it's going to make for comfortable viewing.

 

Edited November 13, 2017 by EliasMooseblaster
PS as I hit "submit" too soon!

[Cato]

And then there's Michael Jackson, involved in some of the greatest music of the 70s and 80s.

Never convicted of anything, but the accusations were so serious that they slightly tarnished his music for me.

But not enough to stop 'I want you back' being one of mynall time favourite songs and play along basslines

[Woodinblack]

For me I can separate them well, and never had an issue with. For my wife it is a lot harder as growing up hanging out with the groups in LA in the 80s there are quite a few of those people who she won't listen to and cant separate from their actions. There are some artists that can't be played in the house.

[Bolo]

I try not to sponsor people whose ideologies or actions I disaprove of. Not saying I'm an angel but that would be hypocritical I think. 

[paulbuzz]

Loads of top-notch art throughout history has been made by individuals who were/are despicable people. If we start ignoring all the art made by unpleasant individuals, it's going to leave some pretty major gaps in the canon of many art forms.

So in theory, I'm fully in favour of keeping the art separate from the artist. In practice, I agree that it's not that easy - in fact there are quite a few bands/musicians whose work I used to love that I now find it much harder to enjoy, after having become aware of their personal flaws. Difficult one, innit?

[uk_lefty]

I hope that we as individuals can do what we like for our own conscience on this topic, but it's when the mass public hysteria grows over something that pushes us to make choices based on other people's view of the correct moral response. I have a hard time with my conscience on Michael Jackson songs, great music but a morally reprehensible character.

Take the recent example of "comic" Dapper Laughs on ITV. He plays a particularly unpleasant character on stage who uses the term "rape" inappropriately on trying to get a laugh from the audience. I am in no way defending him, by the way, but it is interesting how he was hounded out of work and yet other equally distasteful comedians continue to make similar jokes and don't have a moral outcry against them. In my view his real crime was not being talented/ funny enough to pull it off/ get away with it in the way that Ricky Gervais, etc do when they joke about disability and so on. I am not defending or attacking here, just find it interesting how one gets the morality police hounding them out of work and the other maintains a position of reverence in the public eye.

In my view, great art seems to survive the crimes of the artist. 

 

[MrDaveTheBass]

I think it all depends on the quality of the art. I remember hearing some Charles Manson demos, which were chilling, but only because of his infamy. Heard without knowing who's singing, they're pretty unremarkable.

I do think though that unstable/damaged people often have the ability to make more interesting art. It's hard to write a sad, gut wrenching song when everything in your life is sorted, and you haven't got any demons to unleash onto the page.

[Graham]

All interesting points, I'd certainly agree that my willingness to ignore outside factors about the person producing the music is proportional to how much I like it.

I suspect I'll end up continuing to listen to some of these artists, but the material will be tainted to some degree.

I think the best route is to continue what I've been doing the last couple of years and find out as little as possible about the people who make music I like; I remember being really disappointed when I found out Nate Mendel is an AIDS denier, and it was around then I decided to stop reading interviews with musicians. I don't care what they have to say about things, I'll judge their work on it's own merits.

[BigRedX]

What about looking at it from the opposite angle. 

Nice people making dull or boring music.

For me case in point: Pino Paladino. AFAICS throughly all-round nice chap. Phenomenal bass player. Every single piece of music I've heard him play on dull and boring. Even when he's the guest musician for one of my all-time favourite bands the track he plays on is least interesting on the album.

[LeftyP]

This is a very interesting topic.  How far do you go at finding out about an artist before listening to their music or watching them perform?  If you hear a great track on the radio do you hold back your opinion of it until you've checked out the lifestyle of the performer?  As has been said in an earlier post; look back through history at great artists (painters, composers etc) and you may find that their lifestyle was unsavory to say the least.  One of the best live concerts I attended, some years ago, was the Gary Glitter Christmas Show (I got free tickets!).  It was an absolute blast!  Of course we didn't know then what we know now - but it was still a great evening's entertainment.  I try to judge a song from its words and music.  I'm sure if we dug deep enough we could find something to dislike about most of our favorite performers.

[Woodinblack]

Exactly, that is why they are separate to me, and I think because I am not interested in musicians as people all that much. I hear a song I like, I will track down more songs by the same artist, maybe buy the album. I don't really go into any detail in finding out anything about the person, and am not that interested in it. Obviously over time you hear stuff.

At what point do you stop loving your favourite track when it turns out the artist is not that nice?

On the other hand I have some friends who want to know everything about the artist and seem very interested. In fact, not even interested in them, but interested in their fame I guess.

[Bluewine]

I read some stuff about Eric Clapton I didn't like. But I eventually gave him a pass.

Met Sly Stone in a small club in the 80s. I introduced myself as a long time fan.

His response;

"Where's the coke?"

I was pretty disappointed.

Blue

[Byo]

Very interesting thread.

I feel awkward at times when listening to LostProphets after what Ian Watkins was acussed of.

On a less disturbing note, a bassist friend of mine stopped listening to Billy Sheehan completely when he found out that he was part of the Church of Scientology.

 

[EliasMooseblaster]

Just in case we're running out of worms, here's a fresh can:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/14/louis-ck-sexual-misconduct-allegations-comedian-actor

To summarise, the author argues that if you laugh at Louis CK's work, you're complicit in what he's done. I don't take this as a generalisation to apply to all creative wrong'uns, as the author explains that a lot of CK's work (particularly in stand-up) played up to the character of an awkward sex-pest, and so it could be argued that the material itself is tainted by his behaviour - now it turns out he was basically hiding in plain sight.

In the case of musicians, I don't think there's anything in Gary Glitter or Ian Watkins' lyrics that allude to the horrible things they were doing behind the scenes. Can you make a stronger case for the art being kept separate if it doesn't reference the artist's crimes?

[discreet]

10 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

I don't think there's anything in Gary Glitter's lyrics that allude to the horrible things [he was] doing behind the scenes.

 

Do you wanna touch? Yeah! Do you wanna touch? Yeah!
Do you wanna touch me there? Yeah!
Do you wanna touch? Yeah! Do you wanna touch? Yeah!
Do you wanna touch me there? Where? There! Yeah! Oh!

Yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! My my my my my!
Yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!

 

 Mind you, I find it easy to ignore GG's body of work. As I do Rolf Harris's, though I'm a lot more upset about Rolf - he was my world!*

 

*When I was six or seven.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by discreet

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited February 25, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[EliasMooseblaster]

1 hour ago, discreet said:

 

Do you wanna touch? Yeah! Do you wanna touch? Yeah!
Do you wanna touch me there? Yeah!
Do you wanna touch? Yeah! Do you wanna touch? Yeah!
Do you wanna touch me there? Where? There! Yeah! Oh!

Yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah! My my my my my!
Yeah! Oh yeah! Oh yeah!

 

 Mind you, I find it easy to ignore GG's body of work. As I do Rolf Harris's, though I'm a lot more upset about Rolf - he was my world!*

 

*When I was six or seven.

 

Ah. I stand corrected regarding Mr Gadd's output. I didn't really think there was much to like about it in the first place; there's even less now.

[discreet]

30 minutes ago, EliasMooseblaster said:

Ah. I stand corrected regarding Mr Gadd's output. I didn't really think there was much to like about it in the first place; there's even less now.

Mike Leander is also partly responsible for that song. And it has been covered by Joan Jett AND the Glee Cast, so there you go. Glitter's real claim to fame is that his name has become rhyming slang for 'arse'. A fitting tribute, in my view.

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by discreet

[Graham]

1 hour ago, Jus Lukin said:

 

Going back to black metal, there is a movement of 'National Socialist Black Metal'. Given that the lyrics (not that you can pick them out any more than any other black metal!) are openly racist and the bands are often aligned with political movements, I don't like to have anything to do with it, so not as to become a perceived statistic of support for the ideologies, or to put any finances their way. Musically it doesn't vary much from 'normal' black metal, but due to the intent I don't want to give them any validation.

Indeed, I too actively avoid anything I know to be NSBM, fortunately it's a niche genre within a niche genre......though, there were rumours about the previous Winterfylleth bassist, who went on to join Wodesnthrone (or was it the other way around?), who are in the more mainstream BM.

Edited November 15, 2017 by Graham

[discreet]

4 minutes ago, Graham said:

Indeed, I too actively avoid anything I know to be NSBM...

Surely any organisation or movement whose name includes the words 'National Socialist' has to be suspect..? 

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by discreet

[Jus Lukin]

-

Edited March 1, 2022 by Jus Lukin

[Marc S]

What a great question Graham, and some good discussion points here

My reply is that it might depend on exactly what the crime was, and was there a conviction? (Edit: I'm also pretty sure Michael Jackson was "guilty" though not convicted)

If the musician committed a minor offence, that's a different matter, but when it's murder, rape, abuse, assault, racism etc there's a voice in my head reminding me of what this artist has done outside of their music....
But does that fact stop their music being good? I'm asking another question.... and I can't even answer that one! lol
Bono was recently mentioned in the Paradise Papers leak - it was revealed that he has several millions, stashed in an overseas account, as a tax avoidance measure -  yet he also runs an anti-poverty charity..... Never cared for him personally, though U2 have written some great songs.... do I stop listening to those songs? Probably not, because tax avoidance and hypocrisy are rather less serious than assault, murder etc....

Great question OP - it has really started me thinking..... This is going to be in the back of my mind all day now

I've just thought of another ironic situation. John Lydon was once thought of as the epitome of an anti-establishment musician / artist. Many years back he tried to warn the BBC and the media about what Jimmy Saville was up to!
Lydon these days is much more of an iconic figure, and does some great work for charities and is an ambassador for wildlife and the environment......

 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Marc S

[Barking Spiders]

Same for jazz and  classical.  I guess whoever programmes Wagner for classical gigs overlooks the fact he was a notorious anti-semite. For myself even if someone is a bit of a run of the mill douchebag I can't listen to their music without prejudice so I'd rather be ignorant about the people behind the music I like. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by Barking Spiders