Problematic creators and their music

[Jakester]

Currently having a very interesting discussion with members of an orchestra I play in. We're lucky enough to have a very talented MD/arranger, who comes up with all manner of fantastic pieces.

 

We were discussing Quincy Jones yesterday, and today he asked whether it is appropriate to perform arrangements of songs by Michael Jackson that QJ produced and arranged.

 

There's been lots of discussion via Whatsapp since; the crux of it is can you and/or should you, separate the art from the artist?

 

For example, I think MJ's solo music is amazing; the fact we're even discussing it shows the material itself is far more worthy of consideration than something by, for example, Gary Glitter. 

 

One view is that the art stands alone from its creator - by listening to, and performing, the art itself, you are not condoning or supporting the acts of its creator. 

 

Conversely, the other is that the art is irrevocably linked with the acts of its creator and their legacy, and to perform (for example) MJ's songs, it is either ignoring, or giving tacit approval to, the problematic behaviour of the artist.

 

But once you start disappearing down the rabbit hole of dubious acts by prominent musicians there's all manner of things  - Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Mick Jagger, Eric Clapton being some examples -that might undermine their artistry. 

 

So where do you draw the line? Is there a line? Is there a difference between listening to the music and performing it? Is there a difference between covering it and doing a complete new arrangement? 

 

There's also the particular issue for us on to what extent should we take the views of the performers about the repertoire into account? For example, should one person be able to veto a tune because (for example) its lyrical content raises issues in their own life? One illustration is that we had an arrangement of 'Two Tribes' we were going to perform, but then the Ukraine conflict broke out, so we decided to shelve it for a while, but recently performed it with no objection from audience or performers (TBH it hadn't even occurred to me until someone raised it that there might be an issue!)

 

So I'm interested in views people might have on these issues. I don't think there's a "right" or "wrong" answer (other than knee-jerk accusations of 'wokery') - what do you think?

Edited March 21, 2023 by Jakester
Typos

[Dad3353]

Personally, I think that there's a lot of inner soul-searching merely to assuage some individual notion of 'conscience'. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'; each has (or has not...) a particular view on things. What were the morals of the person that made the chair you're sitting on..? What stuff does the bus driver in front of you get up to of an evening..? Is that creepy dentist really smiling, or enjoying some private fantasy whilst you're under his influence..? Why stop at Art..? It's not an issue for those who just get on with things, and look at the World in an innocent, positive, light. Would Mozart have turned out 'bad' if he'd lived longer..? What do we know of the doings of Bruckner, or Wagner, or Benjamin Britten..? Why pick on the few pop idols that fell from their pedestals..? No, to me, it's irrelevant, and more time and energy spent studying and performing the excellent music they produced should outweigh any misgivings about their conduct (or that which has been portrayed in the Media, who have their own agenda...) The paintings of Adolf would have been praised at a certain point of recent History. For those paintings, nothing has changed; they are the same. That he turned out to be something of a Bad Egg hasn't changed their intrinsic properties; Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder. An innocent, unaware of their provenance would base judgement on the article itself; I would hope to be able to do the same. (Not that I appreciate paintings at all, really, and the little I've seen of Adolf's work hasn't inspired me anyway...). Just my tuppence-worth. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by Dad3353

[Jakester]

8 minutes ago, Dad3353 said:

Personally, I think that there's a lot of inner soul-searching merely to assuage some individual notion of 'conscience'. There is no 'right' or 'wrong'; each has (or has not...) a particular view on things. What were the morals of the person that made the chair you're sitting on..? What stuff does the bus driver in front of you get up to of an evening..? Is that creepy dentist really smiling, or enjoying some private fantasy Whilst you're under his influence..? W

 

Isn't the difference thought that the chair factory worker, bus driver and dentist aren't well-known public figures who stand to benefit from their art?

 

Quote

Why pick on the few pop idols that fell from their pedestals..? No, to me, it's irrelevant, and more time and energy spent studying and performing the excellent music they produced should outweigh any misgivings about their conduct (or that which has been portrayed in the Media, who have their own agenda.

 

Hmm, I think certainly in MJ's case it's a little more than 'fell from their pedestal', more like sky-dived off it at a million miles an hour, and it's rather more than misgivings. I think it's 'easier' in relation to the other examples I've given - irrespective of the objective morality, the social mores of the time meant it was more accepted to prey on young girls. 

 

Quote

The paintings of Adolf would have been praised at a certain point of recent History. For those painting, nothing has changed; they are the same. That he turned out to be something of a Bad Egg hasn't changed their intrinsic properties; Beauty is in the eye of the Beholder. An innocent, unaware of their provenance would base judgement on the article itself; I would hope to be able to do the same. (Not that I appreciate paintings at all, really, and the little I've seen of Adolf's work hasn't inspired me anyway...). Just my tuppence-worth. 

 

I think that's rather missing the point - we aren't innocents, unaware of context - which is what's driving the current debate. Thanks for the comments though!

[Saul Panzer]

On a personal level I "draw the line" at the same place I do with everything else, is it going to keep me up at night? aka. can I still look at myself in the mirror without feeling like s##t?.

I don't credit a song with influencing the actions or opinions of the creator/s, if the music is good I'm okay with listening to it or playing it...crediting that creator might be getting closer to my line of feeling scummy.

 

The bigger issue these days is always the "social" line, offending the wrong social element can lead to very real backlash from people who have way too much free time on their hands.

On the personal level, couldn't care less what they think or do...performing publicly would likely bring in a whole load of other factors.

Are people relying on this gig for income? better tow the line, kowtow to the mob or have a backup plan ready.

[TheGreek]

You can't always be the world's conscience. Where do you stand on Bob Marley? Serial drug abuser. Gregory Isaacs - another serial drug abuser who openly funded the Gun Trade. Bill Wyman - his involvement with an under age Mandy Smith was shocking in the 80s - nobody mentions it today. George Michael's high profile gay encounter in the toilets? The allegations about Michael Jackson are still contested - not proved. 

 

The great painters were mostly drug using, alcohol abusing dysfunctionals - Van Gogh is a classic case. James Dean was a well known "outsider" - his circle of friends included "circus freaks". 

 

Time judges people in different ways. You can not be held accountable for the actions of those whose material you reproduce. 

[Jonesy]

It's really odd one to navigate this one - at which point is it OK to separate the art from the artist? There's probably some sort of formula that society subconsciously uses to work it out, where how much their art resonates with you is weighed up against the seriousness of their crime and impact it had on their victims. 

 

Jacko tends to 'get away' with lots because his music was so good. If he hadn't had been so popular, maybe just had a one hit wonder and spent 5 years in the limelight, then would people be so forgiving? Probably not. 

 

I wouldn't turn an MJ tune off, I really loved his tunes and still like them, but I wouldn't want to cover one in a band. I just don't think I'd be comfortable celebrating his music that way. Having said that, I don't have any issue with other people playing his songs - they're great tunes and if I heard someone else playing them I wouldn't pass any judgement on it.

[cetera]

Would it be OK to play a Rod Temperton song, that Michael Jackson did? Where is the line drawn?

 

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

I would expect with a group of orchestra size, one or two objections to a particular piece would get outvoted, unless you've gone down the route of any objections and the song gets sidelined?

Personally, I'm all about the music and the quality thereof. Would I play Two Little Boys or Do You Wanna Touch Me? No, absolutely not. Have I played MJ tunes? You bet.

So I guess I do draw my own lines, but they're fairly broad and I've not yet had any requests for Rolf Harris or Gary Glitter material, so win/win.

I really don't get the objection to Two Tribes. I'd be inclined to ask the objector to do one. Name a time when there wasn't a war going on somewhere.

[chris_b]

I don't really care about the people who wrote or originally performed the music. IMO many were pretty flawed characters. I'm a song stands on it's own kinda guy. 

 

PS

I don't like Quincy Jones. His arrangements were always about him and not the song.  Like Phil Spector's production of Let It Be.

[Doctor J]

It's a string one can pull for a long, long time. Is Eric Clapton's music with Jim Gordon on drums twice as problematic? It goes beyond art to every facet of our privileged first-world lives. Are Boss clothes ok now, has enough time passed since they designed Nazi and made uniforms? What about Benz and BMW who made engines for Nazi bombers? Is there a passing of a certain amount of time which makes things acceptable or are some things truly unforgivable? Is the Whatsapp conversation taking place on devices made in countries with appalling working conditions and few worker rights? Where do we draw the line, indeed?

 

If we start digging, really digging, into what is acceptable to us, we might find we subconsciously accept more than our conscious selves would like to admit.

[Jakester]

49 minutes ago, TheGreek said:

You can't always be the world's conscience. Where do you stand on Bob Marley? Serial drug abuser. Gregory Isaacs - another serial drug abuser who openly funded the Gun Trade. Bill Wyman - his involvement with an under age Mandy Smith was shocking in the 80s - nobody mentions it today. George Michael's high profile gay encounter in the toilets? The allegations about Michael Jackson are still contested - not proved. 

 

Well, I'm trying to separate out listening to, and actively performing the music of potentially problematic artists. 

 

38 minutes ago, Jonesy said:

Jacko tends to 'get away' with lots because his music was so good. If he hadn't had been so popular, maybe just had a one hit wonder and spent 5 years in the limelight, then would people be so forgiving? Probably not.

 

I think this is right. 

31 minutes ago, cetera said:

Would it be OK to play a Rod Temperton song, that Michael Jackson did? Where is the line drawn?

 

 

Well, we did discuss 'Rock With You' and the lyrics, when considered in the context of the performer, could be taken in a pretty negative light. 

 

21 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

I would expect with a group of orchestra size, one or two objections to a particular piece would get outvoted, unless you've gone down the route of any objections and the song gets sidelined?

 

Nope, it was a sort of 'what do we all think' and then a majority vote. 

 

22 minutes ago, hiram.k.hackenbacker said:

I really don't get the objection to Two Tribes. I'd be inclined to ask the objector to do one. Name a time when there wasn't a war going on somewhere.

 

I confess it had entirely passed me by too, but it was literally as the Ukraine conflict was happening, so it was very much front and centre in the news, so could have been seen as being a little insensitive. 

 

23 minutes ago, chris_b said:

I don't really care about the people who wrote or originally performed the music. IMO many were pretty flawed characters. I'm a song stands on it's own kinda guy. 

 

It's really difficult - sometimes I'm exactly like this, but then I start thinking about it, and swing completely back the other way! For example, I like a lot of Eric Clapton's stuff, but I find his personal views abhorrent - not just his evident racism (which is worse to me given he's benefitted entirely from a form of music derived from black music) but his later conspiracist stuff too. Same sort of thing with Morrissey/The Smiths. I guess day-to-day I listen to it but mutter "tosser" under my breath every now and again. 

 

I've been considering performing 'Tears From Heaven' - I have an arrangement which is a cross between the Unplugged and Jeff Berlin's versions, and I love the song, but whilst I'm happy to listen to it, should I be performing it?

 

20 minutes ago, Doctor J said:

If we start digging, really digging, into what is acceptable to us, we might find we subconsciously accept more than our conscious selves would like to admit.

 

Well, I'm not so much asking "is it acceptable to listen to X", rather is it acceptable to actively promote and perform that music? I think it's two separate considerations.

[Cato]

The simple probability is that if you play Michael Jackson songs in public there's a good chance that someone will either raise an objection or at least raise the question of whether it's 'appropriate'.

 

So the question is really whether the performer/performers are OK with that.

 

Incidentally I saw a trio of Michael Jackson impersonators do a show at a family resort in Jamaica a few years back and it went down very well with the assorted Brits, Americans and Europeans present, but that was before the Netflix documentary that seems to have convicted him in the court of public opinion.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Cato

[cetera]

I've seen numerous covers and function bands continue to play MJ songs and never an eyelid is batted. Some of the big MJ tributes are still touring theatres as well.

 

If you enjoy the music and can separate it from allegations (proven or otherwise) then great. If not, you have the right to feel offended, whether anyone else cares or not.

[chris_b]

17 minutes ago, Jakester said:

It's really difficult - sometimes I'm exactly like this, but then I start thinking about it, and swing completely back the other way! For example, I like a lot of Eric Clapton's stuff, but I find his personal views abhorrent - not just his evident racism (which is worse to me given he's benefitted entirely from a form of music derived from black music) but his later conspiracist stuff too. Same sort of thing with Morrissey/The Smiths. I guess day-to-day I listen to it but mutter "tosser" under my breath every now and again. 

 

I've been considering performing 'Tears From Heaven' - I have an arrangement which is a cross between the Unplugged and Jeff Berlin's versions, and I love the song, but whilst I'm happy to listen to it, should I be performing it?

 

You can't select a song based on how angelic it's writer was. If you are looking for a moral compass, don't buy anything made in China, Indian sweat shops or vegetables flown in from Africa and don't vote Tory. That's stuff that really matters.

 

I don't believe Clapton is a racist. Sober he has some stupid views, but he was a chronic alcoholic who would do and say anything depending on how drunk he was.  He's played with Nathan East for 30 years. If he was racist I'm sure Dave Bronze would have been on stage instead.

[Belka]

There does seem to be a tendency for more glamourous, successful, talented or edgy stars to be seen as less troublesome and get away with more - I guess that's human nature. John Lennon was by some accounts serially emotionally and physically abusive to family members, Jimi Hendrix and Syd Barrett were reported to have beaten up/imprisoned girlfriends. Sid Vicious (ok, I know he barely played anything but he was integral to the group) almost certainly murdered his girlfriend. Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Elvis, Rick James also have fairly sordid episodes in their past, but no one seems to find covering their music troublesome.

 

On the other hand, Gary Glitter seems sad and pathetic, and MJ a weirdo, which probably makes them more objectionable to the public than the likes of Pete Townsend and Jerry Lee Lewis, although I acknowledge that the formers' misdeeds would seem to be worse than the latters'.  

 

Another example would be covering Charles Manson songs, which Guns and Roses, the Lemonheads, GG Allin and Marilyn Manson have all done, without suffering much detriment to their careers.  

Edited March 21, 2023 by Belka

[SumOne]

It seems to depend partly on how good the music is.

 

Chris Rock's latest standup:

 

"The thing I have a problem with is selective outrage. That’s right, selective outrage. Everybody, you know what I’m talking about? One person does something, they get cancelled. Somebody else does the exact same thing… No. You know what I’m talking about. You know, like the kind of people that play Michael Jackson songs, but won’t play R. Kelly."

 

[fretmeister]

I find it very easy to separate art from artist, but if that artist is still alive I will make sure they do not benefit from my enjoyment of the art.

There are things that were legal at the time even though we now find them disgusting - like Rembrandt earning a lot of money from slavery. 

 

Then there are modern offences - Gary Glitter wrote some great tunes but he was convicted of multiple offences.

There are no end of celebs who have domestic violence convictions too.

 

Michael Jackson was never convicted AFAIK.

 

Is beautiful art still beautiful if the artist is scum? I think it is. We usually discover the art before the detail of the artist's life so that first impression of beauty is very difficult to shake.

 

It's not just art though - I have no doubt at all that if someone properly researched and came up with a "Vile Humans who invented indispensable items" list it would contain all manner of stuff we just cannot do without created by people who probably should be buried under the prison.

 

How far back do we want to go? Stop using roads because the Romans murdered Jesus?

[hiram.k.hackenbacker]

10 minutes ago, fretmeister said:

I find it very easy to separate art from artist, but if that artist is still alive I will make sure they do not benefit from my enjoyment of the art.

There are things that were legal at the time even though we now find them disgusting - like Rembrandt earning a lot of money from slavery. 

 

Then there are modern offences - Gary Glitter wrote some great tunes but he was convicted of multiple offences.

There are no end of celebs who have domestic violence convictions too.

 

Michael Jackson was never convicted AFAIK.

 

Is beautiful art still beautiful if the artist is scum? I think it is. We usually discover the art before the detail of the artist's life so that first impression of beauty is very difficult to shake.

 

It's not just art though - I have no doubt at all that if someone properly researched and came up with a "Vile Humans who invented indispensable items" list it would contain all manner of stuff we just cannot do without created by people who probably should be buried under the prison.

 

How far back do we want to go? Stop using roads because the Romans murdered Jesus?

I was with you until the last eight words 😂

[Dad3353]

2 hours ago, Jakester said:

... Isn't the difference thought that the chair factory worker, bus driver and dentist aren't well-known public figures who stand to benefit from their art?...

 

For some, maybe; not for me. Why Art, specifically, or only public figures..? Enid Blyton: still a Good Read for children, even if there are Golliwogs in the stories..? Salman Rushdie: do his views warrant a death sentence..? How much do we know of the manners of Chippendale..? What's so special about public figures at all..? Are anonymous folk except from this moral gaze..? Why..? It all seems very odd to me, with dotted lines drawn in thick fog surrounding a moral maze. I think that there are more important issues that are worthy of action, but... Who am I to sort out what is and what isn't..? 

[Franticsmurf]

For me there's a clear difference between liking or performing the music and supporting or promoting the views or lifestyles of those who created it. I would have no problem playing these songs if the set/band/client requested them. I accept that there may be a few who cannot make the distinction between the music and the person. But I believe that attitude is unreasonable unless the music itself condones, supports or promotes immoral behaviour or is so associated with it as to be impossible to separate from the behaviour itself.

 

'Tears in Heaven' is a great song. If we accept that it is tainted by association with Clapton, we must also accept that it is associated with loss, sadness and grieving and has meaning for a lot of people who have found some comfort through that song. Which side do we take?

 

 

 

[Oomo]

For me it's mostly a case of considering:

 

a) am I still encouraging/funding the artist to do more bad things

 

There are plenty of dead people who had views I strongly disagree with, but nothing I can do can benefit them in any way...they're dead. On the other hand if by me watching their stuff on youtube it ups their view count and exposes more people to them, that's another story.

 

b) if I stop supporting them, is there anyone else I'd be hurting

 

E.g. if a film's actor does something terrible and everyone boycotts the movie, I always feel bad for everyone else that was involved, the writers, producers, supporting actors, musicians, set designers, etc. Ideally I'd support them while still condemning the actor, rather than blacklisting something that was really created by many.

 

c) does the thing they've created exist independently of them?
 

If someone awful made a lovely chair, then to be it's still a functional chair, it doesn't stop being something that stops me falling on the floor, and I wouldn't destroy it. They don't benefit from me sitting on it or not. Of course I'd stop buying anything new from them, and discourage others from buying their products.

[jonnybass]

I think, it’s a personal decision. Bearing in mind you are becoming a censor. I always think to myself “is it appropriate?” Do you wanna be in my gang springs to mind here…

“Is there a chance the artist can still benefit from the performance?” Will they get paid for what you do??

 

And in a band context “are we all comfortable?” this goes across the board to all content I think not just who performs it.
 

MJ inparticular…is it all his material? Or are Jackson 5 numbers ok? A band I played in honestly had this discussion. 
 

It’s important to note, MJ was never found guilty of the things he was accused of.  So you are choosing to effectively self regulate based on what? What is the evidence? A Netflix documentary? 
 

tough moral maze this. 
 

good luck…

 

[SumOne]

33 minutes ago, jonnybass said:

 

MJ inparticular…is it all his material? Or are Jackson 5 numbers ok? A band I played in honestly had this discussion. 

 

 

And certain MJ songs were written by others ('Thriller' was by Rod Temperton and produced by Quincy Jones), MJ just performed it. So if you sing it nowadays in your own style you're not really using any MJ 'art', and if you play the bassline then it is just something that was popularised by MJ - not his artistic creation as such.

[SubsonicSimpleton]

1 hour ago, fretmeister said:

Michael Jackson was never convicted AFAIK.

 

Neither was Jimmy Saville.

[Mykesbass]

Difficult one isn't it? As others have said, with MJ, there are so many others involved so when covering a song, how much of it is his? 

 

Next, where do we stop? Beatles? And while we are on the subject of domestic abuse, how do you censor Ike Turner without censoring his victim?